The long and winding road, as The Beatles would put it, that led to the judgments of the CJEU in Teva et altri v. Gilead Sciences (Case C-121/17) and Royalty Pharma v. Deutsches Patent und Markenamt (Case C-650/17), which renewed the Court’s case law on the meaning of “product“, started in the Medeva judgment (Case…

SEP-related case law in Europe is regularly reported in this blog, and other European platforms. Decisions of courts in UK, Germany, France and the Netherlands on FRAND royalties, anti-suit injunctions, anti-anti-suit injunctions, declarations of essentiality and other SEP issues are often thoroughly commented upon. This is not the case of Italian SEP case law. While…

The European Patent Office has invited its users and stakeholders to take position on the first draft of its „Towards a new normal“ orientation document. My experience with such public consultations in the recent past has not been particularly encouraging. It seems to me that outside views are simply collected and then moved into a…

At a time when a bill aiming at granting a compulsory license in the interest of public health in case of extreme sanitary emergency has just been filed in the French Senate on April 8, 2021[1], the fake news that spoil the public debate about the compulsory licensing keep on proliferating. These fake news, which…

Plaintiff’s arguments before the district court were often objectively unreasonable or frivolous; the frivolous nature of his appeal also warranted sanctions against plaintiff and his counsel of appellate fees and double costs. An individual who asserted that he was the co-inventor of a patent directed to a method of “reverse online dating” must pay the…

In the aftermath of the landmark decision ‘Unwired Planet vs Huawei’, a series of other FRAND litigations have followed suit. Cases such as Conversant vs ZTE/Huawei, Philips vs TCL, TQ Delta v ZyXel or Optis v Apple pertain equally to the licensing of standard essential patents. From an economic perspective this raises the question as…

The Barcelona Court of Appeal (Section 15) overturned a first instance decision, making an interesting finding on the application of the “problem-solution approach”: if the revocation claimant submits that its choice of closest prior art only differs from the claimed invention in one (or more) specific feature(s), but the court finds that further differences exist…

I can imagine what the reader might think when reading these few lines: another text on artificial intelligence (“AI”) and the Patent Law! (With perhaps: the author is obsessed with the Daft Punk split[1]). My mantra is: “Never disappoint the reader”! So both are true. That said, concerning the reception of AI by Patent Law…

On 28 December 2020, the Barcelona Court of Appeal (Section 15), one of Spain’s most experienced courts on patent matters, handed down a judgment which is interesting from a wide array of perspectives (how to assess inventive step, novelty, infringement, etc.). This blog will focus on the first aspect (i.e. inventive step) and, more specifically,…