The opponent relied on a document that was distributed in a meeting arranged by himself. The Board of Appeal held that in the present case, it did not share the view of the patentee that it was impossible for him to prove non-distribution and that therefore the burden of proof was with the opponent. In…
The Opposition Division upheld a patent in a decision finding novelty over D1 and inventive step over D1 in combination with D3 or D4. The opponent filed a statement of grounds of appeal containing a new prior art document D5 and argued lack of novelty over D5 or lack of inventive step over the combination…
This decision deals with the scope of the obligation of a plaintiff to concentrate actions in one case if these are directed against the same defendant regarding the same infringing device, but based on different patents and to what extent the plaintiff may choose to use a patent at a later stage. A later action…
In case of actual or potential discrepancies between claim language and the patent description which might allow a broader interpretation the Supreme Court confirms that the claim may not be interpreted to cover all options of the broader description if certain elements of the description have not been reflected in the claim language. Furthermore, such…
The book ‘The Granting of European Patents’ by M. van Empel has recently been added to the (subscription) website kluwerpatentlaw.com. The book was published in 1975, was out of print within a few years and has never been reprinted. This very useful book has now been made available again. The book describes the development of…
In view of the principles outlined in the recent decision T 777/08 it has to be expected that in the future the inventiveness of a novel polymorph form of a pharmaceutically active compound will be acknowledged only if the novel polymorph form is associated with an unexpected pharmaceutical activity, while improved physical and/or physicochemical properties would not be sufficient. Also, an inventive step might be acknowledged if an inventive activity is required to actually manufacture the polymorph.
In a recent decision of 16 June 2011 the German Bundesgerichtshof has cancelled a decision of the German Bundespatentgericht because the Bundespatentgericht had not sufficiently respected the (constitutional) right of one of the parties to a fair hear-ing (“Verletzung des rechtlichen Gehörs”). At the Bundespatentgericht the parties had discussed the validity of a German utility…
Italy has recently filed a complaint with the Court of Justice against Council’s decision of 10 March 2011 no. 167 authorising enhanced cooperation under Art. 20 TEU in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection. Spain had already filed one a few weeks before. As is known, negotiations between the Member States on…
In its 2006 decision in the matter called GAT/LuK the ECJ held that Article 22-4 of the Brussels Regulation – which provides for exclusive national jurisdiction regarding the validity of patents and other registered rights – applies to all proceedings relating to the validity of a patent, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by…
One of the possible courses of action open to patentees when they suspect that a competitor may be preparing the launch of a product that may infringe a patent in force is to send a warning letter. If the response is evasive, this would normally help the patentee to prove that there is an “imminent”…
