SUCCESSFUL MULTILATERAL PATENTS Focus on Europe

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "SUCCESSFUL MULTILATERAL PATENTS Focus on Europe"

Transcription

1 Elizabeth Dawson of Ipulse Speaker 1b: 1 SUCCESSFUL MULTILATERAL PATENTS Focus on Europe 1. INTRODUCTION All of us to some extent have to try to predict the future when drafting patent applications. We need to consider: What prior art might come to light that we don t already know about and how might we want to amend an application to avoid it? How might the product develop and what might we need to cover? What might the competitors do and how can we stop them? Nowhere is this more true than in Europe. We seem to have the strictest of approaches to the addition of subject matter to applications and hence the greatest restrictions on amendment of applications after filing. Why is this? 2. FIRST TO FILE In Europe we operate a first to file system. The filing date of an application is critical. Most countries in Europe have no grace period. To allow the addition of information to an application after filing would allow applicants to sneak in an extra invention having the benefit of the original filing date. The law is applied very strictly to prevent this and no discussion of drafting for Europe would be complete without an analysis of the seemingly innocuous amendments that are considered to add subject matter to an application. Checking amendments for added subject matter takes up a great deal of examiners time and it is especially difficult for those not working in their mother tongue a point I shall return to later. 3. ADDED SUBJECT MATTER THE PITFALLS 3.1 Claim Broadening Many of you will have experienced first hand the problems involved with trying to broaden a claim in any respect before the European Patent Office (EPO). It is worth revisiting the rationale that largely prevents the broadening of claims. If we understand why such changes are not allowed this will better inform our drafting.

2 Elizabeth Dawson of Ipulse Speaker 1b: 2 When I joined the profession the Patents Court in the UK had just handed down a decision concerning Protoned s application. The application concerned a chair having an adjustable backrest. A gas spring was used for the adjustment of the angle of tilt and a mechanical compression spring was used to allow a slight rocking motion when the angle had been set. During prosecution the applicants sought to amend the term mechanical compression spring in the main claim by deleting the word compression. This was not allowed. Nowhere in the original disclosure was there any indication that the spring allowing rocking was anything other than a compression spring. The amendment was refused on the basis that it effectively added subject matter to the original disclosure, since the amended claim would encompass something that was not disclosed in the application as originally filed. The test applied when considering whether a claim amendment can be allowed is does the amended claim encompass something that was not disclosed in the application documents as originally filed? In the case of Protoned s application, the amended claim would have included tension springs, for example, which were not mentioned in the application documents as originally filed. Numerous subsequent decisions in the EPO have disallowed the broadening of claims following similar reasoning. 3.2 Intermediate Generalisation The same reasoning applies to what we call intermediate generalisations. Consider the following claims: 1. A powered tooth brush having a motor unit including a first drive shaft, a second drive shaft drivingly connected to the first drive shaft and extending perpendicular thereto and having a brush attached to its end remote from the first drive shaft. 2. A tooth brush as claimed in claim 1 in which the brush attached to the second drive shaft can be separated from the motor unit and a sleeve extends from the brush and encircles part of the first drive shaft. Now consider the following amendment: 1. A powered tooth brush having a motor unit including a first drive shaft, a second drive shaft drivingly connected to the first drive shaft and extending perpendicular thereto and having a brush attached to its end remote from the first drive shaft in which the brush attached to the second drive shaft can be separated from the motor unit.

3 Elizabeth Dawson of Ipulse Speaker 1b: 3 2. A tooth brush as claimed in claim 1 in which [the brush attached to the second drive shaft can be separated from the motor unit and] a sleeve extends from the brush and encircles part of the first drive shaft. The amended claims amount to an intermediate generalisation. Claim 1 contains only part of claim 2. The resulting claim is intermediate in scope between claims 1 and 2. On the face of it this amendment potentially adds subject matter to the original disclosure. The examiner will be asking is there any disclosure in the application documents as originally filed of the separable construction without the use of the sleeve? If not, the amendment will not be allowed. One for the chemists: 1. A pharmaceutical composition comprising A plus B. 2. A pharmaceutical composition as claimed in claim 1 further comprising C plus D. A possible amendment: 1. A pharmaceutical composition comprising A plus B plus C. 2. A pharmaceutical composition as claimed in claim 1 further comprising C plus D. Before allowing this amendment the examiner will be asking whether there was any disclosure in the application documents as originally filed of the possibility of the composition including C without D. Don t write claim 3 as a dependent claim from claim 2 if it could depend from claim 1. A similar problem arises: 1. A pharmaceutical composition comprising A plus B. 2. A pharmaceutical composition as claimed in claim 1 further comprising C. 3. A pharmaceutical composition as claimed in claim 2 further comprising D. Now consider this amendment: 1. A pharmaceutical composition comprising A plus B plus D. 2. A pharmaceutical composition as claimed in claim 1 further comprising C. 3. A pharmaceutical composition as claimed in claim 2 further comprising D. Again before allowing this amendment the examiner has to ask whether there was any disclosure of the composition containing D without C. 3.3 Ranges A particular discrepancy between European and US practice arises in connection with the description of ranges. Suppose a claim recites a composition containing between 10 and 50 ml water. It is not then possible to narrow this down to, say, 15 to 20 ml unless the range 15 to 20ml is specifically mentioned in the application documents as originally filed. 3.4 Changes in terminology

4 Elizabeth Dawson of Ipulse Speaker 1b: 4 Even seemingly minor changes in terminology can run us into problems related to the addition of subject matter. The majority of the examiners at the EPO are not native English speakers. Therefore if we so much as change feature to component or person to individual the examiner has to look up the terms in the dictionary and be satisfied that the new term has the same scope as the original term. 3.5 Added subject matter leads to invalidity It might be tempting to congratulate ourselves if we have sneaked an amendment past an examiner that is barely supported by the application documents as originally filed but beware: the eventual patent will be vulnerable to attack. A European patent that contains added subject matter is invalid. Would be infringers will check to see what amendments have been made during prosecution. A patentee may be in the position of not being able to amend a patent to remove the added subject matter. A European patent cannot be amended after grant so as to broaden its scope. Therefore if the added matter is in the main claim, for example, it cannot be removed. 3.6 Priority Beware The same logic is used to determine whether a claim is entitled to its claimed priority date. If a claim encompasses something that was not disclosed in the priority application, which can result simply because it is broader than a corresponding claim in the priority application, the claim is not entitled to the date of the priority application. Then, if the invention has been disclosed during the priority year, that disclosure is citable against the claim and may render the claim invalid, either due to lack of novelty or lack of inventive step over the disclosure. To be on the safe side inventions should not be openly disclosed even after a patent application has been filed to safeguard the possibility of filing a subsequent application claiming priority and describing modifications of the invention. Since the EPC2000 came into force in December 2007 it has been possible to file European patent applications without claims. Our advice to clients is don t even think about it because of added subject matter issues. 4. DRAFTING TIPS: So much for the problems, how can we avoid them? 4.1 Formal Requirements As in most jurisdictions the principal parts of a patent specification for Europe are: Title Introduction Summary of the Invention Brief Description of the Drawings Description Claims

5 Elizabeth Dawson of Ipulse Speaker 1b: 5 Specific headings for each section are not required but are often helpful Title The title should be innocuous and not give away what the invention is. This habit is carried over from UK practice since in the UK the title of a patent application is available to third parties before the application is published Introduction The introduction should simply set the scene for the description of the invention and again not divulge what the invention is. Ideally for Europe it should describe the closest prior art known to the applicant and the problem or problems associated with the prior art insofar as they are relevant to the invention. However avoid using statements of objects or aims Summary of the Invention Having described the prior art the invention should then be described using the terminology of the claims. At this point, to please European examiners, you would explain how the invention solves the problem(s) of the prior art. Personally nowadays I am inclined to use such explanations sparingly and only if the problem is clearly solved by the invention as claimed in the broadest claim, rather than the preferred embodiment. Don t dispense with them altogether though. Put them in the specific description. I shall come back to the problem/solution approach to inventive step later Description Following the brief description of the drawings the preferred embodiment or embodiments of the invention should be described in detail. It follows from what I have said that no amount of detail is too much. There should be sufficient verbal description of the drawings that a blind man having the description read to him will be able to envisage the drawings and fully understand the invention. That will help to ensure that the words we might need later to clarify the claims are already in the description. The advantages of the embodiments should be explained in the description. Be clear about which advantages relate to which embodiment(s) and which features bring about the advantages. This will help to support any fall back positions should it be necessary to limit the claims during prosecution. Bear in mind that the EPO does not recognise the incorporation of documents by reference. It is permissible to refer in the specification to background documents in order to ensure that the disclosure is sufficient. However a certain amount of knowledge can be ascribed to the person skilled in the art and it is not necessary to describe well known objects in detail as part of the disclosure. Thus if the invention relates to a cell phone it is not necessary to describe the basic functions that are now common to all cell phones unless this is vital to understanding the invention. Avoid any suggestion that non-essential features are essential. Do more than just say that they are preferred. Say that they can be omitted/replaced by

6 Elizabeth Dawson of Ipulse Speaker 1b: Claims Claims are interpreted literally in Europe. If an allegedly infringing product does not have all of the features of the claim, in general it will not be found to infringe the claim. So don t put non-essential features in claims. The meaning of the claims should be clear without needing to refer to the description. If there are terms in the claims that do not have a universally accepted meaning, those terms should be defined in the claims to ensure that in court, should it come to that, you get the interpretation of the term that you want. We have strict rules relating to independent claims but there is no numerical limit to the number of independent claims that can be granted in a European patent. Take the example of an inventive method of encrypting data. These independent claims might be granted: Encryption: Decryption: Apparatus for encryption Apparatus for Decryption Method of encryption Method of Decryption Computer program product Computer program product System for encryption and decryption Total: seven independent claims What you can t have in Europe is several independent claims of overlapping scope. Thus, for example, two independent claims to the encryption apparatus could not be pursued. For each independent claim you will typically have subsidiary claims in an inverted pyramid arrangement with each claim being narrower in scope than its predecessor. Take care with the running order and use multiple dependencies to maximise the possibilities for amendment post-filing. Don t make claim 3 depend from claim 2 if it could depend from claim 1. Examine each subsidiary claim to see if it could usefully be split into two or more claims of progressively narrower scope. For computer related inventions and others that border on excluded matter, put the apparatus claims first and with luck if the apparatus claims are acceptable the examiner will not examine corresponding method claims too closely. Some practitioners put potential claims in the description to avoid too many excess claims fees at the outset. This is permissible but remember that in some jurisdictions including France, a patent can only be amended post grant by combining existing claims. Features cannot be imported from the description.

7 Elizabeth Dawson of Ipulse Speaker 1b: 7 Once you are satisfied with the claims, check the description again. In case you have used broader terms to describe things in the claims, make sure that there is consistency of terminology between the description of the invention and the claims. For example, if the claim refers to a biasing member and the specific embodiment has a spring, you might wish to amend the description to state that the embodiment has a biasing member, in this embodiment a spring. More importantly, examine which features you have chosen for subsidiary claims and check that the advantages of those features are clear from reading the description. This will help to flesh out possible fall back positions.

8 Elizabeth Dawson of Ipulse Speaker 1b: 8 5. EPO OPERATIONAL ISSUES 5.1 Auxiliary Requests The EPO, like the USPTO, has a large backlog and examiners are under pressure to dispose of applications in fewer actions. There is now a tendency in the telecoms field to operate a two strikes then refuse policy. After two examination communications applications are often refused unless oral proceedings have been requested, which we now always do to avoid early refusal. This is made worse by the fact that subsidiary claims are given only a cursory examination. Therefore practitioners are making more use of auxiliary requests when responding. These contain claims that might be acceptable to the applicant should the preferred claims not be acceptable. Practitioners are not bound by them but examiners have to examine them. The use of auxiliary requests mitigates the disadvantage of having fewer examination communications. Even if the main request is pursued to oral proceedings or an appeal there may be a psychological advantage in knowing that an acceptable set of claims does exist. 5.2 Additional Prosecution Tips Respond to all objections When amending use the same terminology and cite support the examiner wants to see the amendments word for word in the original application documents Try to meet the examiner half way 6. PROBLEM/SOLUTION The EPO likes to see inventions presented as solutions to technical problems. Thus, beginning from the closest prior art, we are expected to define an objective technical problem and then explain the invention in terms of a solution to the problem. The question is then asked, would the solution to the problem have been obvious to a person skilled in the art? This may depend on what other prior art is available. If the novel feature of a claim is known from another prior art document, the question is would (not could) the skilled man have combined the teachings of the two documents to arrive at the invention? Sometimes the solution to a problem is obvious as soon as the problem has been identified. However an inventive step can reside in the identification of the problem itself.

9 Elizabeth Dawson of Ipulse Speaker 1b: 9 Invariably, during prosecution of an application, more relevant prior art comes to light. Then, the problem has to be redefined beginning from we now know to be the closest prior art. This exercise is somewhat academic. There are some inventions for which the problem/solution approach is appropriate and some for which would result in some rather contrived and perhaps not very convincing arguments that I would not wish to have on the public file. I use the problem solution argument wherever it fits and I do not make one up if it doesn t. In those cases where it doesn t work it is often sufficient to explain the advantages of the invention and why it would not have been obvious to combine the cited documents, and leave it to the examiner to satisfy himself that the invention is a solution to a problem. 7. EXCLUDED SUBJECT MATTER In Europe various things are not considered to be inventions. These are defined in Article 52 (2) EPC as follows: (a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods; (b) aesthetic creations; (c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers; (d) presentations of information. However according to Article 52(3) EPC: Paragraph 2 shall exclude the patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to therein only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such. Over the course of the years and many decisions in this area this has led to the practice of allowing patents relating to ostensibly excluded subject matter provided that the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. Nowadays you are far more likely to encounter an objection that an invention in this area lacks inventive step than an objection that it relates to excluded subject matter. The current practice of the EPO is firstly to determine whether the claimed subject matter is an invention. Even such things as books and music CDs will pass this test. However they are likely to be refused on the ground that they do not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. One commentator suggested that in order to get over the first hurdle of whether there is an invention at all is to fill the claims with things you can drop on your foot. I like this analogy. Begin with claims to tangible items. You may be surprised at some of the things that the EPO is persuaded are technical problems. These include rendering a graphical user interface that is more convenient for

10 Elizabeth Dawson of Ipulse Speaker 1b: 10 the user (e.g. on a mobile device where space is limited) and operating an application in such a way as to require fewer actions on the part of the user. 8. CONCLUSION Include as much detail as possible. Think out the claims carefully at the outset. There is no substitute for quizzing the inventor in detail before filing the application. Liz Dawson Ipulse 7 April th Floor, 9-10 Savile Row, London W1S 3PF T: F:

FOCUS ON EUROPE. Successful Multilateral Patents Workshop June 26, 2007 GWILYM ROBERTS European Patent Attorney Kilburn & Strode

FOCUS ON EUROPE. Successful Multilateral Patents Workshop June 26, 2007 GWILYM ROBERTS European Patent Attorney Kilburn & Strode 1 FOCUS ON EUROPE Successful Multilateral Patents Workshop June 26, 2007 GWILYM ROBERTS European Patent Attorney Kilburn & Strode Kilburn & Strode 20 Red Lion Street London WC1R 4PJ UK T: +44 (0) 20 7539

More information

11th Annual Patent Law Institute

11th Annual Patent Law Institute INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Course Handbook Series Number G-1316 11th Annual Patent Law Institute Co-Chairs Scott M. Alter Douglas R. Nemec John M. White To order this book, call (800) 260-4PLI or fax us at

More information

Added matter under the EPC. Chris Gabriel Examiner Directorate 1222

Added matter under the EPC. Chris Gabriel Examiner Directorate 1222 Added matter under the EPC Chris Gabriel Examiner Directorate 1222 April 2018 Contents Added matter under the EPC Basic principles under the EPC First to file Article 123(2) EPC Interpretation Gold standard

More information

The EPO approach to Computer Implemented Inventions (CII) Yannis Skulikaris Director Operations, Information and Communications Technology

The EPO approach to Computer Implemented Inventions (CII) Yannis Skulikaris Director Operations, Information and Communications Technology The EPO approach to Computer Implemented Inventions (CII) Yannis Skulikaris Director Operations, Information and Communications Technology March 2018 Background and context The EPO s approach to CII: fulfills

More information

COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT TRILATERAL PROJECT 12.4 INVENTIVE STEP - 1 -

COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT TRILATERAL PROJECT 12.4 INVENTIVE STEP - 1 - COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT ON TRILATERAL PROJECT 12.4 INVENTIVE STEP - 1 - CONTENTS PAGE COMPARISON OUTLINE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS I. Determining inventive step 1 1 A. Judicial, legislative or administrative

More information

Patenting Software-related Inventions according to the European Patent Convention

Patenting Software-related Inventions according to the European Patent Convention ECSS 2013 October 8, 2013, Amsterdam Patenting Software-related Inventions according to the European Patent Convention Yannis Skulikaris Director, Directorate 1.9.57 Computer-Implemented Inventions, Software

More information

How patents work An introduction for law students

How patents work An introduction for law students How patents work An introduction for law students 1 Learning goals The learning goals of this lecture are to understand: the different types of intellectual property rights available the role of the patent

More information

News and analysis on IP law, regulation and policy from around the world. For the latest updates, visit

News and analysis on IP law, regulation and policy from around the world. For the latest updates, visit WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT >>> News and analysis on IP law, regulation and policy from around the world. For the latest updates, visit www.bna.com International Information for International Business

More information

Note concerning the Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions

Note concerning the Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions PATENTS Note concerning the Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions INTRODUCTION I.THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION II. APPLICATION OF THESE PROVISIONS AND MAINSTREAM CASELAW OF THE

More information

Suzannah K. Sundby. canady + lortz LLP. David Read. Differences between US and EU Patent Laws that Could Cost You and Your Startup.

Suzannah K. Sundby. canady + lortz LLP. David Read. Differences between US and EU Patent Laws that Could Cost You and Your Startup. Differences between US and EU Patent Laws that Could Cost You and Your Startup Suzannah K. Sundby United States canady + lortz LLP Europe David Read UC Center for Accelerated Innovation October 26, 2015

More information

The nuts and bolts of oppositions and appeals. Henrik Skødt, European Patent Attorney

The nuts and bolts of oppositions and appeals. Henrik Skødt, European Patent Attorney The nuts and bolts of oppositions and appeals Henrik Skødt, European Patent Attorney Overview Preparing a notice of opposition. Responding to an opposition. Oral proceedings Filing an appeal notice and

More information

Amendments in Europe and the United States

Amendments in Europe and the United States 13 Euro IP ch2-6.qxd 15/04/2009 11:16 Page 90 90 IP FIT FOR PURPOSE Amendments in Europe and the United States Attitudes differ if you try to broaden your claim after applications, reports Annalise Holme.

More information

SHORT GUIDE ON PATENTS

SHORT GUIDE ON PATENTS SHORT GUIDE ON PATENTS Are you an INVENTOR? An Inventor is a person who proposes a new finding that solves a technical problem. The new finding could be a device, a process, a composition. It could also

More information

WSPLA (Wash. State Patent Law Assoc.) Lunch Seminar

WSPLA (Wash. State Patent Law Assoc.) Lunch Seminar WSPLA (Wash. State Patent Law Assoc.) Lunch Seminar Date: March 15, 2017 12:00-1:30~2:00 Place: Seattle, WA (Washington Athletic Club 1325 6 th Ave. Seattle 98101) 1 Dos and Don ts of US Inbound & Outbound

More information

Working Guidelines Q217. The patentability criteria for inventive step / non-obviousness

Working Guidelines Q217. The patentability criteria for inventive step / non-obviousness Working Guidelines by Thierry CALAME, Reporter General Nicola DAGG and Sarah MATHESON, Deputy Reporters General John OSHA, Kazuhiko YOSHIDA and Sara ULFSDOTTER Assistants to the Reporter General Q217 The

More information

Patent protection on Software. Software as an asset for technology transfer 29 September 2015

Patent protection on Software. Software as an asset for technology transfer 29 September 2015 Patent protection on Software Software as an asset for technology transfer 29 September 2015 GEVERS 2015 www.gevers.eu Frank Van Coppenolle European Patent Attorney Head of GEVERS High-Tech Patent Team

More information

Aligning claim drafting and filing strategies to optimize protection in the EPO, GPTO and USPTO

Aligning claim drafting and filing strategies to optimize protection in the EPO, GPTO and USPTO Aligning claim drafting and filing strategies to optimize protection in the EPO, GPTO and USPTO February 25, 2011 Presented by Sean P. Daley and Jan-Malte Schley Outline ~ Motivation Claim drafting Content

More information

AIPPI Study Question - Patentability of computer implemented inventions

AIPPI Study Question - Patentability of computer implemented inventions Study Question Submission date: June 19, 2017 Sarah MATHESON, Reporter General Jonathan P. OSHA and Anne Marie VERSCHUUR, Deputy Reporters General Yusuke INUI, Ari LAAKKONEN and Ralph NACK, Assistants

More information

US Bar EPO Liaison Council 29th Annual Meeting Munich, 18 October EPO practice issues

US Bar EPO Liaison Council 29th Annual Meeting Munich, 18 October EPO practice issues US Bar EPO Liaison Council 29th Annual Meeting Munich, 18 October 2013 5. EPO practice issues A. Patenting of digital gaming 18 October 2013 Overview Article 52(2) and (3) EPC History of the legal practice

More information

Allowability of disclaimers before the European Patent Office

Allowability of disclaimers before the European Patent Office PATENTS Allowability of disclaimers before the European Patent Office EPO DISCLAIMER PRACTICE The Boards of Appeal have permitted for a long time the introduction into the claims during examination of

More information

Examination of CII and Business Methods Applications

Examination of CII and Business Methods Applications Joint Cluster Computers of and Business Methods Applications Die Dienststelle Wien WWW2006 Edinburgh Dr. Clara Neppel Examiner EPO, München Joint Cluster Computers Das Europäische Patentamt The European

More information

Partial Priorities and Transfer of Priority Rights. Dr. Joachim Renken

Partial Priorities and Transfer of Priority Rights. Dr. Joachim Renken Partial Priorities and Transfer of Priority Rights Dr. Joachim Renken AN EXAMPLE... 15 C Prio 20 C Granted Claim 10 C 25 C In the priority year, a document is published that dicloses 17 C. Is this document

More information

PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO

PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO Robert W. Bahr Acting Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy United States Patent and Trademark Office 11/17/2016 1 The U.S. patent system

More information

EUROPEAN COMMISSION COMMUNITY PATENT CONSULTATION COMPTIA S RESPONSES BRUSSELS, 18 APRIL

EUROPEAN COMMISSION COMMUNITY PATENT CONSULTATION COMPTIA S RESPONSES BRUSSELS, 18 APRIL EUROPEAN COMMISSION COMMUNITY PATENT CONSULTATION COMPTIA S RESPONSES BRUSSELS, 18 APRIL 2006 http://www.comptia.org 2006 The Computing Technology Industry Association, Inc. The Patent System in Europe

More information

Threats & Opportunities in Proceedings before the EPO with a brief update on the Unitary Patent

Threats & Opportunities in Proceedings before the EPO with a brief update on the Unitary Patent Threats & Opportunities in Proceedings before the EPO with a brief update on the Unitary Patent MassMEDIC Jens Viktor Nørgaard & Peter Borg Gaarde September 13, 2013 Agenda Meet the speakers Threats &

More information

ETHIOPIA A PROCLAMATION CONCERNING INVENTIONS, MINOR INVENTIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS PROCLAMATION NO. 123/1995 ENTRY INTO FORCE: May 10, 1995

ETHIOPIA A PROCLAMATION CONCERNING INVENTIONS, MINOR INVENTIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS PROCLAMATION NO. 123/1995 ENTRY INTO FORCE: May 10, 1995 ETHIOPIA A PROCLAMATION CONCERNING INVENTIONS, MINOR INVENTIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS PROCLAMATION NO. 123/1995 ENTRY INTO FORCE: May 10, 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE General Provisions 1. Short

More information

Abstract. Keywords. Kotaro Kageyama. Kageyama International Law & Patent Firm, Tokyo, Japan

Abstract. Keywords. Kotaro Kageyama. Kageyama International Law & Patent Firm, Tokyo, Japan Beijing Law Review, 2014, 5, 114-129 Published Online June 2014 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/blr http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/blr.2014.52011 Necessity, Criteria (Requirements or Limits) and Acknowledgement

More information

Drafting international applications with Europe in mind. Dr. Matthew Barton, UK and European patent attorney, Forresters

Drafting international applications with Europe in mind. Dr. Matthew Barton, UK and European patent attorney, Forresters Drafting international applications with Europe in mind Dr. Matthew Barton, UK and European patent attorney, Forresters Introduction The European patent office (EPO) perhaps has a reputation for having

More information

EPO Decision G 1/15 on Partial Priorities and Toxic Divisionals: Relief and Risks

EPO Decision G 1/15 on Partial Priorities and Toxic Divisionals: Relief and Risks EPO Decision G 1/15 on Partial Priorities and Toxic Divisionals: Relief and Risks In Europe, the claiming of multiple priorities and the concept of partial priority in the context of a single patent claim

More information

The Real Issue In Fed. Circ. Dynamic Drinkware Decision

The Real Issue In Fed. Circ. Dynamic Drinkware Decision Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Real Issue In Fed. Circ. Dynamic Drinkware Decision

More information

Writing Strong Patent Applications in China. Andy Booth Head of Patents Dyson Technology Limited

Writing Strong Patent Applications in China. Andy Booth Head of Patents Dyson Technology Limited Writing Strong Patent Applications in China Andy Booth Head of Patents Dyson Technology Limited My role Secure and maintain intellectual property rights for the IP created within the Dyson business Since

More information

Examiners Report on Paper DII Examiners Report - Paper D Part II

Examiners Report on Paper DII Examiners Report - Paper D Part II Examiners Report on Paper DII Examiners Report - Paper D Part II In the first part of this paper, candidates had to deal with different inventions made by Electra Optic and its new subsidiary, Oedipus

More information

Patent Law in Cambodia

Patent Law in Cambodia Patent Law in Cambodia September 2012 No 64, St 111 PO Box 172 Phnom Penh Cambodia +855 23 217 510 +855 23 212 740 +855 23 212 840 info@bnglegal.com www.bnglegal.com Patent Law in Cambodia September 2012

More information

Questionnaire May 2003 Q Scope of Patent Protection. Response of the UK Group

Questionnaire May 2003 Q Scope of Patent Protection. Response of the UK Group Questionnaire May 2003 Q 178 - Scope of Patent Protection Response of the UK Group 1.1 Which are, in your view, the fields of technology in particular affected by recent discussions concerning the scope

More information

Application Drafting and Provisional Applications

Application Drafting and Provisional Applications Application Drafting and Provisional Applications Scott W. Cummings Partner T +1 202 408 6400 scott.cummings@dentons.com dentons.com What is the Goal of a Patent Application? To obtain a patent for the

More information

Inventive Step. Japan Patent Office

Inventive Step. Japan Patent Office Inventive Step Japan Patent Office Outline I. Overview of Inventive Step II. Procedure of Evaluating Inventive Step III. Examination Guidelines in JPO 1 Outline I. Overview of Inventive Step II. Procedure

More information

COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT INVENTIVE STEP (JPO - KIPO - SIPO)

COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT INVENTIVE STEP (JPO - KIPO - SIPO) COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT ON INVENTIVE STEP (JPO - KIPO - SIPO) CONTENTS PAGE COMPARISON OUTLINE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS I. Determining inventive step 1 1 A. Judicial, legislative or administrative criteria

More information

The European Patent Office

The European Patent Office Joint Cluster Computers European Patent Office Das Europäische Patentamt The European Service For Industry and Public Joint Cluster Computers European Patent Office CII examination practice in Europe and

More information

HUNGARY Patent Act Act XXXIII of 1995 as consolidated on March 01, 2015

HUNGARY Patent Act Act XXXIII of 1995 as consolidated on March 01, 2015 HUNGARY Patent Act Act XXXIII of 1995 as consolidated on March 01, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I INVENTIONS AND PATENTS Chapter I SUBJECT MATTER OF PATENT PROTECTION Article 1 Patentable inventions Article

More information

Uncertainty for computer program patents after the Astron Clinica and Symbian judgments of 2008

Uncertainty for computer program patents after the Astron Clinica and Symbian judgments of 2008 Uncertainty for computer program patents after the Astron Clinica and Symbian judgments of 2008 Item Type Newsletter Authors Guth, Jessica Citation Guth, J. (ed.)(2008). Uncertainty for computer program

More information

Duh! Finding the Obvious in a Patent Application

Duh! Finding the Obvious in a Patent Application Duh! Finding the Obvious in a Patent Application By: Tom Bakos, FSA, MAAA Co-Editor, Insurance IP Bulletin Patents may be granted in the U.S. for inventions that are new and useful. The term new means

More information

PROCEDURES FOR INVALIDATING, CLARIFYING OR NARROWING A PATENT IN THE PATENT OFFICE UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT (AIA)

PROCEDURES FOR INVALIDATING, CLARIFYING OR NARROWING A PATENT IN THE PATENT OFFICE UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT (AIA) I. Prior to AIA, there were two primary ways for a third party to invalidate a patent in the patent office: A. Interference under 35 U.S.C. 135 & 37 C.F.R. 41.202, which was extremely limited, as it required:

More information

AIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Lessons Learned from PTAB and Federal Circuit Decisions

AIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Lessons Learned from PTAB and Federal Circuit Decisions AIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Lessons Learned from PTAB and Federal Circuit Decisions Christopher Persaud, J.D., M.B.A. Patent Agent/Consultant Patent Possibilities Tyler McAllister, J.D. Attorney at Law

More information

pct2ep.com Guide to claim amendment after EPO regional phase entry

pct2ep.com Guide to claim amendment after EPO regional phase entry pct2ep.com Guide to claim amendment after EPO regional phase entry Claim amendments in the EPO Guide to the issues to consider After a PCT application enters the EPO regional phase, and before any search

More information

2010 KSR Guidelines Update, 75 FR (September 1, 2010) Updated PTO guidelines on obviousness determinations in a post KSR World

2010 KSR Guidelines Update, 75 FR (September 1, 2010) Updated PTO guidelines on obviousness determinations in a post KSR World 2010 KSR Guidelines Update, 75 FR 54643-60 (September 1, 2010) Updated PTO guidelines on obviousness determinations in a post KSR World ROY D. GROSS Associate St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC Stamford,

More information

General Information Concerning. of IndusTRIal designs

General Information Concerning. of IndusTRIal designs General Information Concerning Patents The ReGIsTRaTIon For Inventions of IndusTRIal designs 1 2 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 1. What is a patent? 4 2. How long does a patent last? 4 3. Why patent inventions?

More information

Considerations for the United States

Considerations for the United States Considerations for the United States Speaker: Donald G. Lewis US Patent Attorney California Law Firm Leahy-Smith America Invents Act First Inventor to file, with grace period Derivation Actions Prior user

More information

should disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art

should disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art Added subject-matter Added subject-matter in Europe The European patent application should disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled

More information

Frequently Asked Questions. Trade/service marks: What is a trade/service mark?

Frequently Asked Questions. Trade/service marks: What is a trade/service mark? Frequently Asked Questions Trade/service marks: What is a trade/service mark? Is a distinctive sign that serves to distinguish the goods and/or services of one enterprise from those of other enterprises.

More information

Your Guide to Patents

Your Guide to Patents Your Guide to Patents Section 1 General Guide to Patents Section 2 Structure of a Patent Application Section 3 Patent Application Procedure Section 1 General Guide to Patents Section 4 Your Relationship

More information

Kingdom of Bhutan The Industrial Property Act enacted on July 13, 2001 entry into force: 2001 (Part III, Sections 17 to 23: May 1, 2009)

Kingdom of Bhutan The Industrial Property Act enacted on July 13, 2001 entry into force: 2001 (Part III, Sections 17 to 23: May 1, 2009) Kingdom of Bhutan The Industrial Property Act enacted on July 13, 2001 entry into force: 2001 (Part III, Sections 17 to 23: May 1, 2009) TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I PRELIMINARY 1. Title 2. Commencement 3.

More information

Patent Law & Nanotechnology: An Examiner s Perspective. Eric Woods MiRC Technical Staff

Patent Law & Nanotechnology: An Examiner s Perspective. Eric Woods MiRC Technical Staff Patent Law & Nanotechnology: An Examiner s Perspective Eric Woods MiRC Technical Staff eric.woods@mirc.gatech.edu Presentation Overview What is a Patent? Parts and Form of a Patent application Standards

More information

The European Patent Office An overview on the procedures before the EPO: up to grant, opposition and appeal

The European Patent Office An overview on the procedures before the EPO: up to grant, opposition and appeal The European Patent Office An overview on the procedures before the EPO: up to grant, opposition and appeal Yon de Acha European Patent Academy Bilbao, 07.10.2010 25/10/2010 Contents Patents Grant Procedure

More information

Demystifying Self-collision at the EPO

Demystifying Self-collision at the EPO Demystifying Self-collision at the EPO December 2015 Much has been said in the last couple of years about self-collision of European patent applications especially concerning toxic divisional filings invalidating

More information

PSMP. In contrast to a patent the duration of protection of a utility model is limited to ten years from the date of application.

PSMP. In contrast to a patent the duration of protection of a utility model is limited to ten years from the date of application. UTILITY MODELS Utility models, like patents, are technical protective rights, i.e. a technical background must form the basis of the protection request. The utility model act (GbrMG) also rules in 1 (1)

More information

2015 Noréns Patentbyrå AB

2015 Noréns Patentbyrå AB Self-Collision in patent applications How to Avoid Shooting Your Client in the Foot A European perspective with some thoughts on the global situation, including other jurisdictions Jan Modin FICPI Special

More information

The Patents Act 1977 (as amended)

The Patents Act 1977 (as amended) The Patents Act 1977 (as amended) An unofficial consolidation produced by Patents Legal Section 17 December 2007 UK Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office 1 Note to users

More information

The European patent system

The European patent system The European patent system Presenter: Dominique Winne Examiner (ICT) 7 November 2017 Contents EPC PCT Granting procedure at the 2 1 Optional The patent system yesterday and today Senate of Venice, 1474

More information

OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Since 1957 500 MEMORIAL ST. POST OFFICE BOX 2049 DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27702-2049 (919) 683-5514 GENERAL RULES PERTAINING TO PATENT INFRINGEMENT Patent infringement

More information

Dependent Claims. National Patent Drafting Course. Louis M. Troilo U.S. Patent Attorney, FINNEGAN LLP. Chiang Mai, Thailand October 2 to 6, 2017

Dependent Claims. National Patent Drafting Course. Louis M. Troilo U.S. Patent Attorney, FINNEGAN LLP. Chiang Mai, Thailand October 2 to 6, 2017 Dependent Claims National Patent Drafting Course Chiang Mai, Thailand October 2 to 6, 2017 Louis M. Troilo U.S. Patent Attorney, FINNEGAN LLP Patent Claim Drafting Prepare the claims first Write draft

More information

Disclaimers at the EPO

Disclaimers at the EPO Introduction Enlarged Board of Appeal ("EBA") decision G 2/10 (August 2011) sought to clarify a previously existing divergence of interpretation as to the general question of when a disclaimer may be validly

More information

PTO Publishes Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101 in View of In Re Bilski

PTO Publishes Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101 in View of In Re Bilski PTO Publishes Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101 in View of In Re Bilski Stuart S. Levy[1] Overview On August 24, 2009, the Patent and Trademark

More information

Software patenting in a state of flux

Software patenting in a state of flux Software patenting in a state of flux Ewan Nettleton is a senior associate solicitor in the Intellectual Property Department at Bristows. He specialises in Intellectual Property Law with an emphasis on

More information

IP LAW HARMONISATION: BEYOND THE STATUTE

IP LAW HARMONISATION: BEYOND THE STATUTE IP LAW HARMONISATION: BEYOND THE STATUTE Harmonisation of the statutes Harmonisation of Patent Office practice Harmonisation of Court practice Dealing with increasing workloads Tony Maschio & John Lloyd

More information

10 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT PATENT REFORM. W. Edward Ramage Chair, IP Group Baker Donelson

10 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT PATENT REFORM. W. Edward Ramage Chair, IP Group Baker Donelson 10 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT PATENT REFORM W. Edward Ramage Chair, IP Group Baker Donelson eramage@bakerdonelson.com Patent Reform Signed by President Obama on Sept. 16 th Melange of changes (major

More information

Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights. The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of:

Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights. The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Office: Bhutan Intellectual Property Division, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Thimphu Person to be contacted: Name: Mr. Sonam

More information

Patentable Subject Matter and Medical Use Claims in the Pharmaceutical Sector

Patentable Subject Matter and Medical Use Claims in the Pharmaceutical Sector Patentable Subject Matter and Medical Use Claims in the Pharmaceutical Sector 2012 LIDC Congress, Prague, 12 October 2012 Dr. Simon Holzer, Attorney-at-Law, Partner 3 October 2012 2 Introduction! Conflicting

More information

SEEKING THE GOLD (STANDARD) Amendments before EPO. Marco Lissandrini European Patent Attorney

SEEKING THE GOLD (STANDARD) Amendments before EPO. Marco Lissandrini European Patent Attorney SEEKING THE GOLD (STANDARD) Amendments before EPO Marco Lissandrini European Patent Attorney TOPICS LEGAL FRAMEWORK: the basic principles REAL-LIFE EXAMPLES: take-away tips CONCLUSIONS: suggestions for

More information

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 09.03.2005 COM(2005) 83 final 2002/0047 (COD) COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article

More information

patents grant only the right to stop others from making, using and selling the invention

patents grant only the right to stop others from making, using and selling the invention 1 I. What is a Patent? A patent is a limited right granted by a government (all patents are limited by country) that allows the inventor to stop other people or companies from making, using or selling

More information

Proper Drafting of Rejection Rulings

Proper Drafting of Rejection Rulings Rejections: Reasons for Rejections and Proper Drafting of Rejection Rulings Kuala Lumpur, December 2011 Dr. Wolfgang Tauchert Former Presiding Judge at the German Fed. Patent Court 1 Process of Patent

More information

PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT)

PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) E PCT/GL/ISPE/6 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: June 6, 2017 PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) PCT INTERNATIONAL SEARCH AND PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION GUIDELINES (Guidelines for the Processing by International Searching

More information

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION Response to the Questionnaire on the Patent System in Europe Introduction: Who IPLA Are The Intellectual Property Lawyers Association (previously known as the

More information

11th Annual Patent Law Institute

11th Annual Patent Law Institute INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Course Handbook Series Number G-1316 11th Annual Patent Law Institute Co-Chairs Scott M. Alter Douglas R. Nemec John M. White To order this book, call (800) 260-4PLI or fax us at

More information

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group E PCT/WG/5/17 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: APRIL 3, 2012 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group Fifth Session Geneva, May 29 to June 1, 2012 REVISION OF WIPO STANDARD ST.14 Document prepared by the International

More information

Section I New Matter. (June 2010) 1. Relevant Provision

Section I New Matter. (June 2010) 1. Relevant Provision Section I New Matter 1. Relevant Provision Patent Act Article 17bis(3) reads: any amendment of the description, scope of claims or drawings shall be made within the scope of the matters described in the

More information

New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by

New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 May 14, 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes

More information

From the Idea to a Patent

From the Idea to a Patent From the Idea to a Patent www.bardehle.com Content 5 1. What is a patent? 5 2. When is an idea an invention? 5 2.1 Patentability 6 2.2 Novelty 7 2.3 Inventive Step 7 3. How can I apply for a patent? 8

More information

Patent Resources Group. Chemical Patent Practice. Course Syllabus

Patent Resources Group. Chemical Patent Practice. Course Syllabus Patent Resources Group Chemical Patent Practice Course Syllabus I. INTRODUCTION II. USER GUIDE: Overview of America Invents Act Changes with Respect to Prior Art III. DRAFTING CHEMICAL CLAIMS AND SPECIFICATION

More information

Inventive Step in Korea

Inventive Step in Korea Inventive Step in Korea AIPPI Forum October 11-12, 2009 Buenos Aires, Argentina Oct. 2009 Seong-Ki Kim, Esq. Seoul, Korea 1 - Contents - I. Statutory Scheme II. III. IV. Steps for Determining Inventive

More information

An introduction to European intellectual property rights

An introduction to European intellectual property rights An introduction to European intellectual property rights Scott Parker Adrian Smith Simmons & Simmons LLP 1. Patents 1.1 Patentable inventions The requirements for patentable inventions are set out in Article

More information

Title: The patentability criterion of inventive step / non-obviousness

Title: The patentability criterion of inventive step / non-obviousness Question Q217 National Group: China Title: The patentability criterion of inventive step / non-obviousness Contributors: [Heather Lin, Gavin Jia, Shengguang Zhong, Richard Wang, Jonathan Miao, Wilson Zhang,

More information

Selection Inventions the Inventive Step Requirement, other Patentability Criteria and Scope of Protection

Selection Inventions the Inventive Step Requirement, other Patentability Criteria and Scope of Protection Question Q209 National Group: Title: Contributors: AIPPI Indonesia Selection Inventions the Inventive Step Requirement, other Patentability Criteria and Scope of Protection Arifia J. Fajra (discussed by

More information

Fordham 2008 Comparative Obviousness

Fordham 2008 Comparative Obviousness Fordham 2008 Comparative Obviousness John Richards Ladas & Parry LLP E-mail: iferraro@ladas.com What is the purpose of the inventive step requirement? 1. Some subjective reward for brilliance 2. To prevent

More information

COMMENTARY. Antidote to Toxic Divisionals European Patent Office Rules on Partial Priorities. Summary of the Enlarged Board of Appeal s Decision

COMMENTARY. Antidote to Toxic Divisionals European Patent Office Rules on Partial Priorities. Summary of the Enlarged Board of Appeal s Decision March 2017 COMMENTARY Antidote to Toxic Divisionals European Patent Office Rules on Partial Priorities Beginning in 2009, the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office ( EPO ) issued a series of decisions

More information

America Invents Act: The Practical Effects of the New USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings

America Invents Act: The Practical Effects of the New USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings PRESENTATION TITLE America Invents Act: The Practical Effects of the New USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings Wab Kadaba February 8, 2012 1 America Invents Act of 2011 Signed by President Obama on Sept. 16, 2011

More information

The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings

The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings Question Q229 National Group: United States Title: The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings Contributors: ADAMO, Kenneth R. ARROYO, Blas ASHER, Robert BAIN, Joseph MEUNIER, Andrew

More information

FICPI 12 th Open Forum

FICPI 12 th Open Forum "The same invention or not the same invention": That is the question. But what is the answer? FICPI 12 th Open Forum Ingwer Koch, European Patent Office Director Patent t Law Munich, 8-10 September 2010

More information

TEN TIPS FOR MAXIMIZING PROVISIONAL RIGHTS PROTECTION

TEN TIPS FOR MAXIMIZING PROVISIONAL RIGHTS PROTECTION TEN TIPS FOR MAXIMIZING PROVISIONAL RIGHTS PROTECTION Julie R. Daulton Merchant & Gould P.C. Minneapolis, Minnesota How many of us have changed the way we draft claims when filing a patent application

More information

R 84a EPC does not apply to filing date itself as was no due date missed. So, effective date for and contacts subject matter is

R 84a EPC does not apply to filing date itself as was no due date missed. So, effective date for and contacts subject matter is Candidate s Answer DII 1. HVHF plugs + PP has: US2 - granted in US (related to US 1) EP1 - pending before EPO + + for all states LBP has: FR1 - France - still pending? EP2 - granted for DE, ES, FR, GB

More information

IPPT , TBA-EPO, AgrEvo. Technical Board of Appeal EPO, 12 september 1995, AgrEvo [T 939/92]

IPPT , TBA-EPO, AgrEvo. Technical Board of Appeal EPO, 12 september 1995, AgrEvo [T 939/92] Technical Board of Appeal EPO, 12 september 1995, AgrEvo [T 939/92] PATENT LAW No lack of support of claim in case of incredible description A claim concerning a group of chemical compounds is not objectionable

More information

The America Invents Act: Key Provisions Affecting Inventors, Patent Owners, Accused Infringers and Attorneys

The America Invents Act: Key Provisions Affecting Inventors, Patent Owners, Accused Infringers and Attorneys The America Invents Act: Key Provisions Affecting Inventors, Patent Owners, Accused Infringers and Attorneys James Morando, Jeff Fisher and Alex Reese Farella Braun + Martel LLP After many years of debate,

More information

Patent litigation. Block 1. Module Priority. Essentials: Priority. Introduction

Patent litigation. Block 1. Module Priority. Essentials: Priority. Introduction Patent litigation. Block 1. Module Priority Introduction Due to the globalisation of markets and the increase of inter-state trade, by the end of the nineteenth century there was a growing need for internationally

More information

DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS

DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface... v v About the Authors... xiii vii Summary Table of Contents... xv ix Chapter 1. European Patent Law as International Law... 1 I. European Patent Law Arises From Multiple

More information

Chemical Patent Practice. Course Syllabus

Chemical Patent Practice. Course Syllabus Chemical Patent Practice Course Syllabus I. INTRODUCTION TO CHEMICAL PATENT PRACTICE: SETTING THE STAGE FOR DISCUSSING STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING RISK OF UNENFORCEABILITY AND ENHANCING CHANCES OF INFRINGEMENT,

More information

Topic 12: Priority Claims and Prior Art

Topic 12: Priority Claims and Prior Art Topic 12: Priority Claims and Prior Art Lutz Mailänder Head, International Cooperation on Examination and Training Section Harare September 22, 2017 Agenda Prior art in the presence of priorities Multiple

More information