The Court of Appeal of Milan established a principle whereby named inventors must be called in revocation actions and, if they are not, proceedings may not reach the stage of decision. This principle, which may sound strange to practitioners of other jurisdictions, is based on Art. 122, paragraph 4, of the Italian IP Code, according…
The Enlarged Board of Appeal states in its Opinion G3/08, reason 7.2.1 (italics added): “The European Patent Organisation is an international, intergovernmental organisation, modelled on a modern state order and based on the separation of powers principle, which the sovereign contracting states have entrusted with the exercise of some of their national powers in the…
On 22 June 2010, the English Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in yet another case involving stents in Occlutech v. AGA Medical. The appeal was dismissed with the result that AGA’s patent was held not infringed by Occlutech. The decision itself is interesting for three reasons: First, and most importantly, the decision contains…
Separating and testing the two enantiomers of a chiral molecule having an already-known therapeutic effect in order to identify the active enantiomer, evaluating its specific therapeutic effect and finally recommending, through the patent, its use for an identical but better-quality therapeutic effect, involves no inventive step.
The plaintiff, Power Stow A/S (“Power Stow”), held a national patent for a ramp for transporting luggage onto aircrafts. During prosecution of the patent-in-suit, the Danish PTO had initially declined to grant the patent for lack of inventive step over a US patent. A revised patent application was subsequently accepted in February 1996. Later RASN…
Control question: remember what this was? You certainly knew the answer had you read Max’s post on Patent Law and Philosophy: this is not just an IBC (Intermediate Bulk Container) for acids and toxins; this is a modern embodi-ment of an ancient Greek paradoxon. Remember: “cage + bottle = IBC”. This much is clear enough,…
One of the first questions that arise when a patentee is considering embarking on patent litigation is “Where should I sue?”. The answer to this question depends on a variety of factors, such as the workload of the Courts, their experience in patent cases, the convenience of the patentee and, of course, the legal framework…
In this case the Court of Appeal of Lyon affirmed the first French judgement granting an interlocutory injunction to prevent imminent infringement of a patent. The President of the First Instance Court had not considered any argument relating to the validity of the patent, and decided that in summary proceedings, only the existence of the…
The German Federal Court of Justice has maintained Microsoft’s patent relating to alternative handling of short and long filenames. In the first instance, the Federal Patent Court considered the teaching of the patent not inventive over the Rock Ridge Interchange Protocol used for CD-ROMs. However, supported by a court expert the Federal Court of Justice…
I. Priority of Invention II. Proving Conception and Reduction to Practice III. Sample Laboratory Notebook IV. Instructions For Maintaining Laboratory Notebook V. Instructions for Maintaining Inventory of Laboratory Notebooks I. PRIORITY OF INVENTION In accordance the United States patent statute, only the “first inventor” of the claimed invention is entitled to a patent for that…
