Claim amendments - a case for national proceedings in the life science field?
|
|
- Randolf Rogers
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Claim amendments - a case for national proceedings in the life science field? Dr. Leo Polz German Patent Attorney European Patent Attorney Partner Dott. Marco Benedetto Italian Patent Attorney European Patent Attorney Partner Dr. Nadja G. Muncke British Chartered Patent Attorney Partner European Patent Attorney Silvia Bertran Valls European Patent Attorney 1 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
2 The EPO 2 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
3 STATISTICS Outcomes of EPO Examination Appeal Decisions Dismissal Grant Remittal Life Science All* Boards of Appeal * Source of data: 3 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
4 STATISTICS Inter partes decisions on Art. 123(2) EPC 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Amendment not allowed allowed Patentee friendly: , Patentee unfriendly: , (3.3.08) 4 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
5 Central Limitation at the EPO The EPO s central limitation procedure allows a patent proprietor to amend a patent granted by the EPO using a single central procedure. Any amendments made at the EPO are effective in all countries in which the patent is in force. The procedure is available for all patents granted by the EPO that are still in force (including those granted before EPC 2000 came into force). 5 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
6 Central Limitation at the EPO Written Request No need to explain the reasons for the amendment. No need to file new citations Should explain the basis for the amendment in the application as originally filed. EPO Examination Checking the amendments are clear, supported by the description, do not add matter beyond the as-filed application and do not extend the protection. No checking whether the amended claims are novel and inventive. Allowance and Publication Once the amendments are allowed, the patent proprietor must file a translation of the amended claims in each of the official languages of the EPO. The amended patent specification is then published by the EPO. 6 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
7 Central Limitation at the EPO Key features of the central limitation procedure: A request for limitation may be filed at any time during the life of the patent except when opposition proceedings are pending. If an opposition is filed while limitation proceedings are pending, the limitation proceedings are terminated. The procedure is ex parte, so a third party cannot intervene. The limited patent has a retroactive effect in all countries. The effect of patent is as though it had been granted in limited form. The limitation procedure can be used as many times as the patent proprietor wishes provided that each successive use is a further limitation. The procedure usually takes less than a year, but can be faster or slower. 7 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
8 Central Limitation at the EPO Recommendations The EPO central limitation procedure is a convenient and cost-effective way to amend a patent that has been granted by the EPO. This procedure is recommended in preference to national procedures if the patent has been granted by the EPO. However, the procedure should not be used if the patent proprietor wants to make amendments that are effective in only some of the designated states of the patent i.e. only one or a few countries. 8 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
9 General Principles Why are amendments restricted? Applicant should not be allowed any unfair advantage when amending and should not be able to improve his position Third parties must have legal certainty These principles are set out in Art 123 EPC 9 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
10 General Principles Art 123(2) EPC: The European patent application or European patent may not be amended in such a way that it contains subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed. 10 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
11 General Principles Admissibility The admissibility of amendments under Art. 123(2) EPC is to be decided solely on the basis of examining whether the amendments are directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed by the skilled person. (T 288/92) The skilled person can use common general knowledge and can take into account implicit and explicit disclosures. 11 Life Science IP Seminar
12 General Principles Explicit Disclosure: Literal support not required No requirement to use the exact wording from the application as filed (but it is generally a good idea to do so!) (T 667/08) Implicit Disclosure: the clear and unambiguous consequence of what is explicitly disclosed (e.g. in view of basic scientific laws) Product inevitably resulting from adequately described production process (T 12/81, T 270/97) 12 Life Science IP Seminar
13 Germany 13 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
14 National amendment of patents in Germany A patent proprietor may make the following types of amendments to his German patent after grant: voluntary amendments by starting limitation proceedings; amendments in response to a challenge by a third party to the validity of the patent during an opposition or during nullity proceedings. 14 Post-Grant Amendment of National Patents in Key European Jurisdictions
15 National amendment of patents in Germany Limitation proceedings before the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA) An application to amend can be made at any time after grant. The patent proprietor must provide details of the prior art which caused the limitation to be requested, and he must explain the reasons for the request. The DPMA: checks whether the amendment is clear, whether it adds matter and whether it extends the scope of protection provided by the patent; but does not check whether the limited claims are novel and inventive or whether it is necessary to limit the claims. 15 Post-Grant Amendment of National Patents in Key European Jurisdictions
16 National amendment of patents in Germany Amendment during opposition or nullity proceedings: DPMA Opposition proceedings take place before the DPMA. Nullity proceedings take place before the Federal Patent Court. In both types of proceedings, a requested amendment is examined to determine: whether the amendment is clear; whether it adds matter; whether it extends the scope of protection; and whether the amended claims are novel and inventive. Federal Patent Court 16 Post-Grant Amendment of National Patents in Key European Jurisdictions
17 National amendment of patents in Germany All of the following forms of amendment are permitted in all types of German amendment proceedings: deletion of one or more claims ( abandonment ); incorporation of one or more dependent claims into an independent claim; amendment of an independent claim by incorporation of a previously unclaimed feature from the description or drawings of the granted patent. 17 Post-Grant Amendment of National Patents in Key European Jurisdictions
18 National amendment of patents in Germany Effect of amendments in Germany: All amendments have a retroactive effect to the date of grant of the patent, except abandonments All amendments have effect with respect to all third parties. This effect is applicable to matters past and closed. A deemed infringer can, if a subsequent limitation brings his acts outside the scope of the patent, seek amendment of the Court s decision and reversal of penalties, e.g. return of paid damages. 18 Post-Grant Amendment of National Patents in Key European Jurisdictions
19 National amendment of patents in Germany Legal Basis essentially the same as EPC Original Disclosure: everything that is directly and unambiguously derivable from the original disclosure Unallowable Amendments: Added subject matter that the skilled person can derive only with the aid of his common general knowledge or by modification of the disclosed teaching ( aliud ) 19 Post-Grant Amendment of National Patents in Key European Jurisdictions
20 National amendment of patents in Germany No binding effect: German Courts and GPTO are independent form each other and from EPO BUT: Requirement for mutual acknowledgment of decisions of other Infringement and Revocation Courts - including instances of EPO and other courts of EPC member states (BGH Xa ZB 10/09 Walzenformgebungsmaschine) 20 Post-Grant Amendment of National Patents in Key European Jurisdictions
21 Admissibility of Amendments Claim Interpretation is required: Subject matter of the claim has to be determined before examination of added matter (BGH X ZR 101/13 Polymerschaum II) Legal Basis Art 69 EPC + Protocol, 14 PatG The extent of the protection conferred by a European patent or a European patent application shall be determined by the claims. Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims. 21 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
22 Admissibility of Amendments Content of Disclosure: Determination of the Content of Disclosure is a Point of Law, not a Question of Fact Meaning of a technical feature has to be considered for determination of content of disclosure The same standard is not necessarily be required for a feature that contributes less to the invention than a for a feature that is essential for the invention (4 Ni 7/15 Bioreaktor) 22 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
23 Correction of Inadmissible Amendment In case of (intermediate) Generalization Deletion of unallowably generalized feature (BGH X ZR 43/09 Integrationselement) If deletion results in extension of granted scope (Art. 123(3) EPC): Limiting feature remains in Patent Claim No rights can be derived from the unallowably added feature 23 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
24 Implicit Disclosure BGH X ZR 77/12 Proteintrennung Implicitly disclosed can be anything that the skilled person considers self-evident in order to perform the claimed teaching. Taking into account something self-evident does not allow to supplement the original disclosure by general knowledge, but merely assists to determine the content of the disclosure in its entirety. 24 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
25 Implicit Disclosure BGH X ZR 77/12 Proteintrennung EP : Claim 1 concerns a purification method for FVIII from human plasma Last step involves freeze-drying of FVIII solution Prior Art: FVIII concentrate for pharmaceutical use No lyophilization step mentioned 25 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
26 Implicit Disclosure BGH X ZR 77/12 Proteintrennung The Court: A (literally undisclosed) measure of a manufacturing process for a pharmaceutical composition may be comprised by the original discosure, if it is necessary to render the composition (protein concentrate) suitable for pharmaceuctical application (lyophylisation), and if said measure was common general praxis at the priority date to achieve this aim. Claim 1 of EP not novel! 26 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
27 United Kingdom 27 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
28 UK Patents Act 1977 as amended - Amendments Amendments after grant (section 27 Patents Act 1977) 27(1) [..], the comptroller may, on an application made by the proprietor of a patent, allow the specification of the patent to be amended subject to such conditions, if any, as he thinks fit. - discretionary - upon application by proprietor - must provide reasons and any relevant art - will be published, can be opposed - urgency not highly relevant any more - must lead to valid claims: no added matter (section 76(3)(a)), not extension of scope (section 76(3)(b)) 28 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
29 UK Patents Act 1977 as amended - Amendments Amendments after grant, during infringement or revocation proceedings (section 75) 75-(1) In any proceedings before the court or the comptroller in which the validity of a patent may be put in issue the court or, as the case may be, the comptroller may, subject to section 76 below, allow the proprietor of the patent to amend the specification of the patent [ ]. added on 13 December (5) In considering whether or not to allow an amendment proposed under this section, the court or the comptroller shall have regard to any relevant principles applicable under the European Patent Convention. Request for amendment can be made on a conditional or on an unconditional basis. 29 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
30 UK Patents Act 1977 as amended - Amendments Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd v Evans Medical Ltd [1989] FSR 561 (i) the onus to establish that amendment should be allowed is upon the patentee and full disclosure must be made of all relevant matters; (ii) amendment will be allowed provided the amendments are permitted under the Act and no circumstances arise which would lead the court to refuse the amendment; (iii) it is in the public interest that amendment is sought promptly, so a patentee who delays for an unreasonable period before seeking amendment must show reasonable grounds for his delay; This principle is no longer relevant in light of s.75(5). (iv) a patentee who seeks to obtain an unfair advantage from a patent, which he knows or should have known should be amended, will not be allowed to amend; (v) the court is concerned with the conduct of the patentee and not with the merit of the invention. This principle is no longer relevant in light of s.75(5). 30 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
31 Warner-Lambert v Generics [2016] EWCA Civ 1006 Warner-Lambert v Generics [2016] EWCA Civ 1006 Amendment September 2015: [2015] EWHC 2548: Arnold J: certain claims lack sufficiency of disclosure October 2015: Warner-Lambert made a conditional application to amend the patent. Opposed by Mylan and Actavis. November 2015: [2015] EWHC 3370 Arnold J struck out application to amend claim 3 as an abuse of the process of the court May 2016: Court of Appeal [2016] EWCA Civ 1006 Confirmed upheld Arnold J s decision 31 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
32 Warner-Lambert v Generics [2016] EWCA Civ 1006 Arnold J: 148. [ ], I consider that the application to amend claim 3 is an abuse of process because it could and should have been made prior to trial. Warner-Lambert not only had ample opportunity to make a conditional application to amend prior to trial, but also ought to have appreciated, for the reasons explained above, that it needed to do so if it wished to contend a claim limited in that manner would be independently valid. If the amendment application was allowed to proceed, it could not be determined fairly without a second trial on validity. Furthermore, there is a risk that such a second trial would delay the overall resolution of the dispute. Accordingly, in my view, the amendment application amounts to unjust harassment of Mylan and Actavis. It would also be contrary to the interests of other generic suppliers of pregabalin. It is true that the consequence (subject to the outcome of the appeals) will be that claim 3 is invalid and must be deleted, but that consequence is attributable to Warner - Lambert electing to defend the insufficiency attack on claim 3 in the way in which it did, which proved unsuccessful (subject to the outcome of the appeals), and not making a conditional application to amend before trial. As the cases show, Warner-Lambert is not the first patentee to have made that mistake. 32 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
33 UK Patents Act 1977 as amended - Amendments Section 76: Amendment of applications and patents not to include added matter 76 (3) No amendment of the specification of a patent shall be allowed under section 27(1), 73 or 75 if it - (a) results in the specification disclosing additional matter, or (b) extends the protection conferred by the patent 33 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
34 Napp v Ratiopharm ([2009] EWCA Civ252 Napp v Ratiopharm ([2009] EWCA Civ252 Summary on added matter (point 71 of the decision) Bonzel v Internvention (No 3) [1991] RPC 553 To compare the two disclosures and decide whether any subject matter relevant to the invention has been added whether by deletion or addition. The comparison is strict in the sense that subject matter will be added unless such matter is clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the application either explicitly or implicitly. Richardson Vick s Patent [1995] RPC 568 I think the test of added matter is whether a skilled man would, upon looking at the amended specification, learn anything about the invention which he could not learn from the unamended specification. 34 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
35 Hospira v Genentech, Court of appeal, [2016] EWCA Civ 780 EP(UK) , EP(UK) Claim 1 ( 628 as amended): 1. A formulation comprising a lyophilized mixture of a lyoprotectant, a buffer, a surfactant and an antibody, wherein a molar ratio of lyoprotectant:antiboy is moles lyoprotectant : 1 mole antibody, wherein the lyoprotectant is trehalose or sucrose, wherein the buffer is histidine, wherein the surfactant is polysorbate 20 and wherein the antibody is a monoclonal antibody humab4d5-8, obtainable by lyophilizing a solution containing 25 mg/ml humab4d5-8, 5mM histidine ph 6.0, 60 mm trehalose and 0.01% polysorbate 20. Protein concentration 187. Starting from the 628 patent in its amended form including proposed claim 1, no doubt the first thing a skilled person seeking to put it into practice would do would be to consider repeating the lyophilisation of the Table 5 Solution. But I believe they would understand claim 1 to teach them that they would produce a stable formulation by lyophilising a solution with a higher protein concentration provided only that the lyophilised material was obtainable by the lyophilisation of the Table 5 solution, in other words provided that the Table 5 molar ratio was maintained. Taking that approach is something taught in the document as amended. It is new information. I find the amendment adds matter. (High Court) 35 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
36 Merck Sharp & Dohme v Shionogi, [2016] EWHC 2989 EP(UK) Use of a compound of formula (I) : [ ] for the preparation of a pharmaceutical composition for use as an integrase inhibitor for preventing or treating a viral disease. Judge cited EPO s case law on selections from lists Unconditional amendment/claims as granted: No added matter. It is true that the shrinkage involved a degree of selection from multiple lists, but there was no singling out of specific compounds, or specific classes of compounds. Thus the skilled team is not taught anything different about the invention as a result of the limitation. Proposed 2 nd conditional amendment: Added matter. It singles out a specific combination of restriction on R 1 and Z 1, Z 2 and Z 3 respectively which is not hinted at in the Application. It therefore does teach the skilled team something new about the invention. Moreover, [..] this is not an accident: the purpose of the amendment is to exclude compounds which don t work. 36 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
37 Idenix v Gilead, [2016] EWCA Civ 1089 EP(UK) Claim 1: 1. A compound of Formula (IX): or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, wherein: R1 and R2 are independently H; phosphate; straight chained, branched or cyclic alkyl; acyl; CO-alkyl; CO-aryl; CO-alkoxyalkyl; CO-aryloxyalkyl; CO-substituted aryl; sulfonate ester; benzyl, wherein the phenyl group is optionally substituted with one or more substituents; alkylsulfonyl; arylsulfonyl; aralkylsulfonyl; a lipid; an amino acid; a carbohydrate; a peptide; or a cholesterol; X is O; Base* is a purine or pyrimidine base; R12 is C(Y3)3; Y3 is H; and R13 is fluoro. 37 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
38 Idenix v Gilead, [2016] EWCA Civ 1089 Claim 4 as granted: Restricted the definition of Base to eights specific bases. Added matter (no disclosure in application of this particular set of bases) Amendment to claim 1: Idenix sought to amend to delete compounds unlikely to have antiviral activity. Added matter (no disclosure of this subgroup or of their activity). 38 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
39 Italy 39 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
40 The standard applied to allowability of amendments Summary - Amendments (voluntary) filed by the Applicant during the patent prosecution before IPTO (Art. 172 co. 2 IPC) - Amendments after receiving the Search report - Patent limitation (voluntary) before IPTO (Art. 79 co. 1 IPC) - Patent limitation in the invalidity proceedings (Art. 79 co. 3 IPC) - Consequences of amendments 40 Life Science IP Seminar
41 The standard applied to allowability of amendments Amendments (voluntary) filed by the Applicant during the patent prosecution before IPTO (Art. 172 co. 2 IPC) - Art. 172 co. 2 CPI states: The applicant, prior to the IPTO granting a title (i.e. Patent) [ ], in case a petition has been filed, may rectify, as to non-substantial profiles, the originally filed application [ ]; - [ ] in respect of an application for an invention patent [ ], the Applicant may integrate also by new examples, or to restrict the description, the claims or the originally filed drawings [ ]. 41 Life Science IP Seminar
42 Differences in national prosecution or post-grant proceedings Amendments after receiving the Search report - For Italian national filing as first filing (priority application) - Search report carried out by the EPO and received via IPTO (no charges for the applicant!) - Different filings on the same day having the same disclosure but different sets of claims (e.g. composition and use claims) receive both a Search report free of charge - Amendments permitted after receiving the Search report from the IPTO, but before 21 months from the filing date (Art. 5 M.D ) 42 Life Science IP Seminar
43 The standard applied to allowability of amendments Patent limitation (voluntary) before IPTO (Art. 79 co. 1 IPC) - Art. 79 co. 1 IPC states: A patent may be limited, upon filing by its holder of a request, to which the description, the claims and the modified drawings must be attached. - After grant, without any time limit restriction - The limitation may not extend the protection as conferred by the granted patent 43 Life Science IP Seminar
44 The standard applied to allowability of amendments 1. Patent limitation in the invalidity proceedings (Art. 79 co. 3 IPC) - Art. 79 co. 3 IPC states: In a proceeding concerning nullity, the owner of the patent has the right to submit to the Court, at any stage or instance of judgment, modified claims that remain within the limits of the content of the patent application as initially filed and that do not extend the protection conferred by the patent granted; Art. 79 co. 3 IPC has been introduced to avoid any different treatment between national and European patents (Art. 138 co. 3 EPC) 44 Life Science IP Seminar
45 The standard applied to allowability of amendments 2. Patent limitation in the invalidity proceedings (Art. 79 co. 3 IPC) - What does at any stage or instance of judgment mean? (T. Milano 15/11/2012; T. Milano 11/6/2014, n. 7708) - Two opposite extremes: abuse of the patent procedure and legal certainty of third party (T. Milano n. 714/2017 & 15/9/2012) - Limit for an amendment: within the limits of the content of the patent application as initially filed and that does not extend the protection conferred by the patent granted (Art co. (c) IPC; Art. 123 (2) & Art. 123 (3) EPC) - Date of effectiveness of the amendment (T. Milano 5377/2015) 45 Life Science IP Seminar
46 The standard applied to allowability of amendments Consequence of unallowable amendments - Invalidity: Art. 76 co. 1(c) IPC) states: A patent is invalid: c) if the object of the patent extends beyond the contents of the initial application or the protection of the patent has been extended; - The sanction (invalidity) provides the principle of preserving the public interest and legal certainty of third party 46 Life Science IP Seminar
47 Differences in national prosecution or post-grant proceedings Consequence of national and EP s centralized amendments - Applicability of Art. 79 co. 3-bis: When there is both a limitation of the European patent following a limitation procedure as per the European Patent Convention, and a limitation of the same European patent with effect in Italy following a national procedure, the scope of protection conferred by the patent is determined taking into account each of the limitations established. 47 Life Science IP Seminar
48 Spain 48 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
49 National Amendments of Patents in Spain Amendments (voluntary) filed by the Applicant during the patent prosecution before SPTO (Art. 48 Law 24/2015) - Art states: With the exception of obvious errors, the interested party may only modify the claims during the grant procedure as allowed by the present law, and subject to what is established by the rules. The possibility of modifying the claims includes the modification of the description and, where appropriate, the drawings or biological sequences [ ]. 49 Life Science IP Seminar
50 National Amendments of Patents in Spain - Art and 48.6 Law 24/2015 state: - The patent application or the patent may not be modified in such a way that its subject matter exceeds the content of the application as initially filed. - In the opposition or limitation proceedings the patent may not be modified in a way that extends the protection it confers. 50 Life Science IP Seminar
51 National Amendments of Patents in Spain Limitation requested by the Proprietor after grant before SPTO (Art. 105 Law 24/2015) Art : At the request of the Proprietor, the granted patent may be revoked or limited by modifying the claims at any time during its legal life, including the period of validity of the supplementary protection certificates (SPCs), if applicable. But the request may not be filed during the opposition period or while opposition or limitation proceedings are on-going (Art.41.3 of the rules for implementation of Law 24/2015) Art : When a judicial proceeding on the validity of the patent is pending the request for limitation, addressed to the SPTO, shall be authorized by the Judge or Court that knows the proceedings. 51 Life Science IP Seminar
52 National Amendments of Patents in Spain Patent limitation in the nullity proceedings (Art. 43 of the rules for implementation of Law 24/2015) - When judicial proceedings regarding the validity of the registered patent are in progress, the SPTO will inform the Judge/Court about the request for limitation - Once limitation proceedings are concluded, the SPTO shall inform the Judge/Court of its decision and provide a copy of the patent as modified 52 Life Science IP Seminar
53 National Amendments of Patents in Spain Consequence of unallowable amendments - Grounds of nullity (Art Law 24/2015): c) when the subject-matter of the patent extends beyond the contents of the application as filed; d) when the protection conferred by the patent has been extended - The sanction (nullity) follows the principle of preserving the public interest and the legal certainty of third parties 53 Life Science IP Seminar
54 Thank you for your attention! Dr. Leo Polz German Patent Attorney European Patent Attorney Partner Dr. Nadja G. Muncke British Chartered Patent Attorney Partner European Patent Attorney Dott. Marco Benedetto Italian Patent Attorney European Patent Attorney Partner Silvia Bertran Valls European Patent Attorney 54 Life Science IP Seminar 2017
Technical Effects A Comparison Between the EPO and the National Practice
Technical Effects A Comparison Between the EPO and the National Practice Dr. Klemens Stratmann German Patent Attorney European Patent Attorney Partner Dott. Marco Benedetto Italian Patent Attorney European
More informationSummary Report. Report Q189
Summary Report Report Q189 Amendment of patent claims after grant (in court and administrative proceedings, including re examination proceedings requested by third parties) The intention with Q189 was
More informationHarmonisation across Europe - comparison and interaction between the EPO appeal system and the national judicial systems
- comparison and interaction between the EPO appeal system and the national judicial systems 22 nd Annual Fordham IP Law & Policy Conference 24 April 2014, NYC by Dr. Klaus Grabinski Federal Court of Justice,
More informationRSC LAW GROUP NEWSLETTER
RSC LAW GROUP NEWSLETTER April 2015 Message from the editor Dear all, A number of events took place last year including the hugely popular case law seminar, which was held on 20 November at Burlington
More informationThe Same Invention or Not the Same Invention? Thorsten Bausch
The Same Invention or Not the Same Invention? Thorsten Bausch FICPI World Congress Munich 2010 CONTENTS The Same Invention or Not the Same Invention? Practical Problems The standard of sameness the skilled
More informationIPPT , 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 informationPOST-GRANT AMENDMENT JOHN RICHARDS
23 rd Annual Fordham Intellectual Property Law & Policy Conference Cambridge, April 8-9, 2015 POST-GRANT AMENDMENT JOHN RICHARDS The Problem There is a real life problem in that when filing a patent application
More informationLessons learnt 6 February 2015
Lessons learnt from patent case law in Europe in 2013 and 2014 Véron & Associés Seminar Paris Maison de la Recherche 6 February 2015 Isabelle Romet Paris Lyon 1. Main teachings of 2013-2014 (1/2) 1. Possible
More informationEUROPEAN PATENT LITIGATORS ASSOCIATION (EPLIT)
Litigators Asscociation EUROPEAN PATENT LITIGATORS ASSOCIATION (EPLIT) ACTAVIS V LILLY MILAN, 14 MAY 2018 EUROPEAN PATENT LITIGATORS ASSOCIATION Actavis UK Limited and others (Appellants) v Eli Lilly and
More information2016 Study Question (Patents)
2016 Study Question (Patents) Submission date: 9th May 2016 Sarah MATHESON, Reporter General John OSHA and Anne Marie VERSCHUUR, Deputy Reporters General Yusuke INUI, Ari LAAKKONEN and Ralph NACK, Assistants
More informationSuzannah 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 informationPartial 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 informationRecent EPO Decisions: Part 1
Oliver Rutt RSC Law Group IP Case Law Seminar 9 November 2017 Decisions G1/15 Partial Priority T260/14 Partial Priority T1543/12 Sufficiency T2602/12 Admissibility T2502/13 Article 123(2) EPC / Disclaimers
More informationINDIRECT INFRINGEMENT AND REPAIRS - EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE. Rachel Oxley Mewburn Ellis LLP, London, UK
INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT AND REPAIRS - EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE Rachel Oxley Mewburn Ellis LLP, London, UK OVERVIEW Repairs United Wire v Screen Repair Services Schütz v Werit Indirect Infringement Grimme v Scott
More informationClaim interpretation by the Boards of Appeal of the EPO
Claim interpretation by the Boards of Appeal of the EPO UNION Round Table: How to Cope with Patent Scope - Literal Interpretation of Claims throughout Europe Munich, 26 February 2010 Dr. Rainer Moufang
More informationTeva vs. Leo Pharma. Oliver Rutt RSC Law Group IP Case Law Seminar 18 November 2015
Oliver Rutt RSC Law Group IP Case Law Seminar 18 November 2015 Points Of Interest Pharmaceutical patents directed to incremental inventions Provides guidance regarding g obvious to try doctrine Appeal
More informationEurope Divided Update on National Case Law in Europe
Europe Divided Update on National Case Law in Europe Leythem Wall 29 November 2011 European Patents 38 EPC Member States as of 1 January 2011 Centralized prosecution Bundle of national patents Articles
More informationDrafting 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 informationshould 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 informationCOMPULSORY LICENCE in Germany. Markus Rieck LL.M.
COMPULSORY LICENCE in Germany Markus Rieck LL.M. 1 1877 - GERMAN PATENT ACT Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-R68588 / P. Loescher & Petsch / CC-BY-SA 3.0 2 Public interest Dependent patent Plant breeders privilege*
More informationDr Julian M. Potter February 2014
The European Patent Court and Unitary Patent Don t Panic Be Prepared Dr Julian M. Potter February 2014 (c) Dr Julian M Potter 2014 1 Patent in Europe - now National patents through respective national
More informationPharma Session 1: Sufficiently plausible?
Pharma Session 1: Sufficiently plausible? Monday, October 16 2017 09:00-10:30 www.aippi.orgg Jürgen Meier, Vossius & Partner (Moderator) Dominic Adair, Bristows Charles Boulakia, Ridout & Maybee LLP Judge
More informationSupreme Court decision regarding the 5th Requirement of the Doctrine of
Asamura NEWS Vol. 26 July 2018 Kenji Wada Attorney at Law Asamura Law Offices kwada@asamura.jp Mari Yuge Patent Attorney Chemical Department myuge@asamura.jp Hisashi Kanamori Patent Attorney Chemical Department
More informationConstruction of second medical use claims. The Hon. Mr Justice Richard Arnold
Construction of second medical use claims The Hon. Mr Justice Richard Arnold The problem Claim 1 of European Patent (UK) No. 0 934 061 reads: Use of [pregabalin] or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof
More informationCase Information Pyrimidine Derivative Case
Summary authored by Nobuyuki Akagi Case Information Case Pyrimidine Derivative Case Court, case no. Grand Panel of IP High Court ((H28) 2016 (Gyo-Ke) 10182, 10184)) Date of judgment April 13, 2018 Parties
More informationEuropean Patent with Unitary Effect
European Patent with Unitary Effect and the Unified Patent Court May 2013 Dr Lee Chapman lchapman@jakemp.com www.jakemp.com Where are we? Regulations relating to the EPUE and translation arrangements were
More informationTools and Pitfalls Recent Decisions from the EPO Boards of Appeal 20 November 2014
Tools and Pitfalls Recent Decisions from the EPO Boards of Appeal 20 November 2014 Presented by: Leythem A. Wall Overview Acceleration of Appeal Proceedings Double Patenting Admissibility of Appeals Added
More informationSwitzerland. Esther Baumgartner Christoph Berchtold Simon Holzer Kilian Schärli Meyerlustenberger Lachenal. 1. Small molecules
Esther Baumgartner Christoph Berchtold Simon Holzer Kilian Schärli Meyerlustenberger Lachenal 1. Small molecules 1.1 Product and process claims Classic drug development works with small, chemically manufactured
More informationThe Unitary Patent Plan Beta Update on National Case Law in Europe
The Unitary Patent Plan Beta Update on National Case Law in Europe Leythem Wall 28 November 2013 Declarations of Non-Infringement Article 15 of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement sets out the areas
More informationStrategies to protect a market entry against (provisional) injunctions
Strategies to protect a market entry against (provisional) injunctions Dr. Clemens Tobias Steins, LL.M. German Attorney-at-Law Partner 1 Life Science IP Seminar 2017 Strategies to protect a market entry
More informationti Litigating Patents Overseas: Country Specific Considerations Germany There is no "European" litigation system.
Wolfgang Festl-Wietek of Viering Jentschura & Partner Speaker 11: 1 LSI Law Seminars International ti Litigating Patents Overseas: Country Specific Considerations Germany by Wolfgang Festl-Wietek Viering,
More informationAn 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 informationAllowability 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 informationSFIR / AIPPI 31 August Amendment of patent claims in France. Partial revocation of a claim by Court (only possibility until January 1, 2009)
Amendment of patent claims in France SFIR / AIPPI 31 August 2009 Isabelle Romet Paris Lyon Content 1. 2. Partial revocation of a claim by Court (only possibility until January 1, 2009) Ex-parte limitation
More informationEffective Mechanisms for Challenging the Validity of Patents
Effective Mechanisms for Challenging the Validity of Patents Walter Holzer 1 S.G.D.G. Patents are granted with a presumption of validity. 2 A patent examiner simply cannot be aware of all facts and circumstances
More informationThe opposition procedure and limitation and revocation procedures
The opposition procedure and limitation and revocation procedures Closa Daniel Beaucé Gaëtan 26-30/11/2012 Contents Introduction Legal framework Procedure Intervention of the assumed infringer Observations
More informationThreats & 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 informationDawn of an English Doctrine of Equivalents: immaterial variants infringe
Dawn of an English Doctrine of Equivalents: immaterial variants infringe November 2017 The Supreme Court reinvents patent infringement The Supreme Court s landmark judgment in Actavis v Eli Lilly is a
More information11th 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 informationPregabalin: Where stand plausibility, Swiss-form claims, late amendment and more?
University College London IBIL Innovation Seminar 2018 Pregabalin: Where stand plausibility, Swiss-form claims, late amendment and more? Dr. Matthias Zigann Presiding Judge Regional Court Munich I Swiss
More informationQuestionnaire 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: Germany Office: Federal Ministry of Justice and for Consumer Protection / German Patent and Trademark Office Person to be contacted:
More informationSecond Medical Use Patents in Europe: Are the UK and Germany Swapping Approaches?
WHITE PAPER January 2019 Second Medical Use Patents in Europe: Are the UK and Germany Swapping Approaches? The UK Supreme Court s ruling in Warner Lambert v Actavis resulted from deliberations over the
More informationEvidence in EPO Proceedings. Dr. Joachim Renken Madrid, November 14, 2016
Evidence in EPO Proceedings Dr. Joachim Renken Madrid, November 14, 2016 General Principles Who carries the burden of proof during prosecution? Who bears the burden during opposition? Exceptions Who bears
More informationIN THE NAME OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
FRENCH SUPREME COURT Commercial Chamber Public hearing of December 6, 2017 Case number 15-19726 Published in the Bulletin Dismissal Presiding Judge Mrs. Mouillard SCP Hémery and Thomas-Raquin, SCP Piwnica
More informationMerck Sharp & Dohme & Anr. v Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd
BIOTECH BUZZ International Subcommittee December 2015 Contributor: Archana Shanker Changing trends in Indian patent enforcement In the history of the Patent Litigation in India, at least since 1970, only
More informationPresumption Of Patent Validity In Patent Litigations The New Trends
Presumption Of Patent Validity In Patent Litigations The New Trends 11 th EGA Legal Affairs Forum March 27, 2015 Kristof Roox, Partner, Crowell & Moring Contents A. Prima facie" validity of patents in
More informationPatentable 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 informationPROPOSALS FOR CREATING UNITARY PATENT PROTECTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
PROPOSALS FOR CREATING UNITARY PATENT PROTECTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION The idea of a Community Patent, a single patent that can be enforced throughout the European Union (EU), is hardly new. The original
More informationSUPPLEMENTARY PROTECTION CERTIFICATES: THE CJEU ISSUES ITS DECISION IN TWO SEMINAL CASES
58 CASE COMMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY PROTECTION CERTIFICATES: THE CJEU ISSUES ITS DECISION IN TWO SEMINAL CASES DR MIKE SNODIN, DR JOHN MILES AND DR MICHAEL PEARS* Potter Clarkson LLP On 24 November 2011, the
More informationAdded 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 informationWhere are we now with plausibility?
/0/7 Where are we now with plausibility? Jin Ooi, Allen & Overy LLP (UK) Monday April 7 What s the big deal with plausibility? For the first time since the first edition in 188, the 18 th edition of Terrell
More informationDETAILED 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 informationChemical 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 informationAUSTRIA Utility Model Law
AUSTRIA Utility Model Law BGBl. No. 211/1994 as amended by BGBl. Nos. 175/1998, 143/2001, I 2004/149, I 2005/42, I 2005/130, I 2005/151, I 2007/81 and I 2009/126 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
More informationAIPPI Study Question - Conflicting patent applications
Study Question Submission date: June 19, 2018 Sarah MATHESON, Reporter General Jonathan P. OSHA and Anne Marie VERSCHUUR, Deputy Reporters General Yusuke INUI, Ari LAAKKONEN and Ralph NACK, Assistants
More informationUtility Models in Southeast Asia and Europe and their Strategic Use in Litigation. Talk Outline. Introduction & Background
Utility Models in Southeast Asia and Europe and their Strategic Use in Litigation Dr. Fritz Wetzel Patent Attorney, European Patent and Trademark Attorney Page: 1 Page: 2 1. Introduction & Background 2.
More informationBE it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-sixth Year of the Republic of India as follows:-
~ THE PATENTS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005 # NO. 15 OF 2005 $ [4th April, 2005] + An Act further to amend the Patents Act, 1970. BE it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-sixth Year of the Republic of India as
More informationRECENT EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENTS REGARDING PATENT EXTENSIONS (SPCs AND PAEDIATRIC EXTENSIONS)
KUIPERS, DOUMA AND KOKKE : RECENT EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENTS REGARDING PATENT EXTENSIONS (SPCs AND PAEDIATRIC EXTENSIONS) : VOL 12 ISSUE 4 BSLR 123 RECENT EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENTS REGARDING PATENT EXTENSIONS (SPCs
More informationEuropean Patents. Page 1 of 6
European Patents European patents are granted according to the European Patent Convention. The European Patent Convention is administered by the European Patent Organisation, part of which is the European
More informationUtility Model Law I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Utility Model Law Federal Law Gazette 1994/211 as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 1998/175, I 2001/143, I 2004/149, I 2005/42, I 2005/130, I 2005/151, I 2007/81 and I 2009/126 I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Subject
More informationStrategies for successful Patent Enforcement in Germany. Michael Knospe, Partner, SJ Berwin LLP
Strategies for successful Patent Enforcement in Germany Michael Knospe, Partner, SJ Berwin LLP 1 Overview 1. Some statistical data 2. Why Germany? 3. Infringement proceedings 4. Preliminary injunction
More informationFUNCTIONAL CLAIMING UNDER THE EPC General principles and case-law
FUNCTIONAL CLAIMING UNDER THE EPC General principles and case-law Elisabetta Papa Società Italiana Brevetti S.p.A. Functional claiming is allowed under the EPC and related case-law, with a few disclosure-specific
More informationHUNGARY 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 informationThe 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 informationAIPPI REPORT OF THE NETHERLANDS GROUP ON 2016 STUDY QUESTION (PA- TENTS) ADDED MATTER: THE STANDARD FOR DETERMINING ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR AMENDMENTS
AIPPI REPORT OF THE NETHERLANDS GROUP ON 2016 STUDY QUESTION (PA- TENTS) ADDED MATTER: THE STANDARD FOR DETERMINING ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR AMENDMENTS Members of the working group: Jeroen Boelens; Sophie
More informationPatent reform package - Frequently Asked Questions
EUROPEAN COMMISSION MEMO Brussels, 11 December 2012 Patent reform package - Frequently Asked Questions I. Presentation of the unitary patent package 1. What is the 'unitary patent package'? The 'unitary
More informationEUROPEAN GENERIC MEDICINES ASSOCIATION
EUROPEAN GENERIC MEDICINES ASSOCIATION POSITION PAPER POSITION PAPER ON THE REVIEW OF DIRECTIVE 2004/48/EC ON THE ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS JUNE 2011 EGA EUROPEAN GENERIC MEDICINES ASSOCIATION
More informationDoctrine of Equivalents: Recent Developments in Germany
Doctrine of Equivalents: Recent Developments in Germany Young EPLAW Congress Brussels 24 April 2017 Ole Dirks decisively different Introduction Legal framework: Art. 69 para. 1 EPC / Sec. 14 German Patents
More informationIP Law and the Biosciences Conference
IP Law and the Biosciences Conference Biologics in the International Arena April 26, 2018 Panelists Moderator: Justin Watts Partner, WilmerHale Jürgen Dressel Rebecca Eisenberg Professor of Law, University
More informationpct2ep.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 informationPatent Protection: Europe
Patent Protection: Europe Currently available options: National Patent European Patent (EP) Centralised registration procedure (bundle of nationally enforceable patents) Applicant designates the states
More informationXVI.3. Maintenance of the patent in amended form
XVI.3. Maintenance of the patent in amended form XVI.3.1. Art.101(3)(a) and R.82 contain the legal provisions for the maintenance of a patent in amended form. The current EPO practice for implementing
More informationThe use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings. Maria CRUZ GARCIA, Isabel FRANCO, João JORGE, Teresa SILVA GARCIA
Question Q229 National Group: Title: Portugal The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings Contributors: Filipe BAPTISTA, Maria CRUZ GARCIA, Isabel FRANCO, João JORGE, Teresa SILVA GARCIA
More informationThe Patent Examination Manual. Section 10: Meaning of useful. Meaning of useful. No clear statement of utility. Specific utility
The Patent Examination Manual Section 10: Meaning of useful An invention, so far as claimed in a claim, is useful if the invention has a specific, credible, and substantial utility. Meaning of useful 1.
More informationIntellectual Property and crystalline forms. How to get a European Patent on crystalline forms?
Intellectual Property and crystalline forms How to get a European Patent on crystalline forms? Ambrogio Usuelli Chief-Examiner European Patent Office, Munich, Germany Bologna, 19th January 2012 Sponsor:
More information4. COMPARISON OF THE INDIAN PATENT LAW WITH THE PATENT LAWS IN U.S., EUROPE AND CHINA
4. COMPARISON OF THE INDIAN PATENT LAW WITH THE PATENT LAWS IN U.S., EUROPE AND CHINA Provisions of the Indian patent law were compared with the relevant provisions of the patent laws in U.S., Europe and
More informationPatent Term Extensions in Taiwan
This article was published in the Markgraf Ergänzende Schutzzertifikate - Patent Term Extensions on 2015. Patent Term Extensions in Taiwan I. Introduction Ruth Fang, Lee and Li Attorneys at Law The patent
More informationPATENT SYSTEM STATUS OFREFORMS
THE UNITARY PATENT SYSTEM STATUS OFREFORMS 1. STATUS OF REFORMS* On December 11, 2012 the EU Parliament approved the implementation of the Unitary Patent System based on a Unitary Patent Regulation (Council
More information(Acts whose publication is obligatory) concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products
2. 7. 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 182/ 1 I (Acts whose publication is obligatory) COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary
More informationBefore: MRS JUSTICE ROSE Between: - and
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 313 (Pat) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION PATENTS COURT Case No: HP 2015 000060 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 18/02/2016 Before:
More informationSPC system simple, transparent and easy to apply? By Peter Damerell, Ayesha Raghib and William Hillson Powell Gilbert LLP
SPC system simple, transparent and easy to apply? By Peter Damerell, Ayesha Raghib and William Hillson Powell Gilbert LLP The strength and depth of our intellectual property expertise is second to none,
More informationThe Patents (Amendment) Act,
!"# The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 1 [NO. 15 OF 2005] CONTENTS [April 4, 2005] Sections Sections 1. Short title and commencement 40. Amendment of Section 57 2. Amendment of Section 2 41. Substitution
More informationComparison between Opposition Systems in Europe and Japan
Comparison between Opposition Systems in Europe and Japan First published in Patent 2017, Vol. 70, No.5 Authors: Dr. Christian Köster European Patent Attorney Kazuya Sekiguchi Japanese and European Patent
More informationR 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 informationGermany. Henrik Holzapfel and Martin Königs. McDermott Will & Emery
GERMANY Germany Henrik Holzapfel and Martin Königs Patent Enforcement Proceedings 1 Lawsuits and courts What legal or administrative proceedings are available for enforcing patent rights against an infringer?
More informationThe Netherlands Pays Bas Niederlande. Report Q189. in the name of the Dutch Group
The Netherlands Pays Bas Niederlande Report Q189 in the name of the Dutch Group Amendment of patent claims after grant (in court and administrative proceedings, including re examination proceedings requested
More informationDHS Patentanwaltsgesellschaft mbh Munich. RECENT RULINGS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE ON SPCs
Dr. Stefan Danner December 2011 German and European Patent Attorney danner@dhs-patent.de RECENT RULINGS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE ON SPCs In the last few months, the European Court of Justice (ECJ)
More informationContents. m) Amendments without support II: Disclaimers n) Corrections o) Additional limitations of pre-grant amendments p) Amendments after grant
Recent experiences with Art. 123(2) EPC The ban on adding subject-matter not disclosed in the application as filed: An oftentimes neglected provision when drafting patent applications Dr. Joachim Renken
More informationOFFICIAL GAZETTE OF ROMANIA, PART I, NO.613/19 AUGUST 2014 REPUBLICATION PATENT LAW NO.64/1991 1
OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF ROMANIA, PART I, NO.613/19 AUGUST 2014 REPUBLICATION PATENT LAW NO.64/1991 1 CHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS Art. 1 - (1) The rights in inventions shall be recognized and protected on
More informationPatents: opposition proceedings and nullity actions a comparison between Europe and Japan
Murgitroyd and Sonoda & Kobayashi present Topic 1 Topic 2 Topic 3 Topic 4 Contact Patents: opposition proceedings and nullity actions a comparison between Europe and Japan Luca Escoffier Diane Beylier
More informationPatent Rights Retention by the Contractor (Short Form)
52.227 11 Patent Rights Retention by the Contractor (Short Form) As prescribed in 27.303(a), insert the following clause: Patent Rights Retention by the Contractor (Short Form) (Jun 1997) (a) Definitions.
More informationAligning 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 informationBrinkhof. Defendant s Objection to the Application for Provisional Measures. Merva. Pentapharm
Brinkhof Unified Patent Court Local Division Milan [Address] Action number: [ ] Date oral hearing: 20 September 2016 Date submission: 6 September 2016 Defendant s Objection to the Application for Provisional
More informationUnitary patent and Unified Patent Court: the proposed framework
Unitary patent and Unified Patent Court: the proposed framework The adoption of two key regulations late last year have paved the way for the long-awaited unitary patent and Unified Patent Court By Rainer
More informationDisclaimers 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 informationKey to the European Patent Convention Edition Part VI
Key to the European Patent Convention Edition 2011 Part VI Article 106 - Decisions subject to appeal PART VI - APPEALS PROCEDURE Article 106 i - Decisions subject to appeal (1) An appeal shall lie from
More informationEuropean Commission Questionnaire on the Patent System in Europe
European Commission Questionnaire on the Patent System in Europe Response by: Eli Lilly and Company Contact: Mr I J Hiscock Director - European Patent Operations Eli Lilly and Company Limited Lilly Research
More informationKevin C. Adam* I. INTRODUCTION
Structure or Function? AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc. and the Federal Circuit s Structure- Function Analysis of Functionally Defined Genus Claims Under Section 112 s Written Description
More informationNote 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 informationThe European Patent and the UPC
The European Patent and the UPC Robin Keulertz German Patent Attorney, European Patent Attorney, European Trademark and Design Attorney February 22nd, 2019 Current European Patent Grant Procedure Invention
More information