Holding bench trial instead of jury trial deprived SEP owner Ericsson of Seventh Amendment rights because trial was held to determine compensatory relief for mobile device maker TCL’s past infringement. Swedish telecommunications company Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and its U.S. subsidiary Ericsson Inc. (together, “Ericsson”) should have been given a jury trial instead of a bench…
As was rightly noted on this blog, the skilled person’s “hope” of solving the objective technical problem using the means that led to the (later claimed) invention, has disappeared from the Guidelines for Examination. What we are left with is the (perhaps) more objective “expectation of some improvement or advantage (see T/83)”. Interestingly, this expectation…
The appeal on a point of law, for which no leave was granted by the Federal Patent Court, was held admissible, because the grounds of appeal under §100 III 3 and 6 PatG were invoked. However, it was unsuccessful on the merits, since the deficiencies asserted by the patentee – namely that the decision was…
On 5 December 2019, the IP Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) handed down two decisions in which – in a first for China, the SPC heard and decided on both the patent validity and infringement disputes in one consolidated proceeding. Background The two actions arose out of a patent infringement dispute between the…
One of the key questions in the assessment of inventive step within the EPO is whether or not the skilled person will adapt or modify the teaching of the closest prior art and arrive at the invention. The EPO answers this question using the so-called could-would approach developed in the early decision T2/83 of a…
This decision is certainly worth reading if you deal with inventive step objections of the form “abstract algorithm implemented on a generic computer” or the like. The Board of Appeal provides a helpful review of case law, and pushes back the frequent assumption that improved algorithms cannot give a technical effect. This decision could well…
In the present preliminary case the consequence of the termination of the agreement between Medical Workshop and Sharpsight was that Medical Workshop was no longer able to use the name Invitria for the sale and marketing of the ophthalmalogic product protected by a patent owned by the single shareholder of Sharpsight. Case date: 16 October 2019…
After a year of stagnation concerning the Unitary Patent project, chairman Alexander Ramsay of the UPC Preparatory Committee has published a year end message on the committee’s website. The message makes clear that despite the expected and unexpected “hurdles” of the Brexit and the German constitutional complaint against the ratification of the UPCA, which “call…
The Brussels Bar Association (Dutch speaking section, hereafter BBA) recently issues the third guideline since it was created in 1994. In this Guideline the BBA instructs its members how they should safeguard the attorney-client privilege in the event of a saisie contrefaçon at the client. Since the Brussels courts have exclusive competence for patent litigation…
As the clock strikes midnight on 31 December 2019, we hope that the new Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA) will not be the first thing on our minds. Nevertheless, the beginning of this new decade will mark the entry into force of these new rules, which look set to have a…
