Perfused microtissue/MIT, European Patent Office (EPO Board of Appeal), 04...
, for Kluwer Patent Cases Following decision G 1/03, the Board concluded that a disclaimer that is used to remove subject-matter falling under the prohibition of Article 53(a) EPC in combination with...
View ArticleTreatment by surgery, European Patent Office (EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal),...
V.O. 1. The Enlarged Board of Appeal considered the meaning that is to be given to the exclusion of patents on methods for ‘treatment by surgery’ (Article 53(c) EPC). The current construction used by...
View ArticleMundipharma v. Sandoz, District Court The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag), 7 April...
Brinkhof The District Court of The Hague granted Mundipharma a provisional injunction against Sandoz for infringement of its patent for a controlled release oxycodon formulation. The District Court...
View ArticleT_0680/08, EPO Board of Appeal, 15 April 2010
V.O. Claim 1 of the opposed patent had a limitation to a range of values with a lower bound that was slightly higher than disclosed in the priority document. The Board refused to recognize priority. As...
View ArticleWinkelmesseinrichtung, Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), 21...
Krieger Mes Graf & v. der Groeben The Court addresses the issue of how to deal with a feature of a patent claim that was not originally disclosed, but the deletion of which would lead to a...
View ArticleOxycodone, Borgarting Appelate Court (Borgarting Lagmannrett), 20 December 2010
, for Kluwer Patent Cases The Borgarting Court of Appeal overturned the district court decision which revoked the patents in suit for lack of inventive step. The Court held that even if oxycodone had...
View ArticleG2/10 – DISCLAIMERS FOR DISCLOSED SUBJECT-MATTER
Hoffmann Eitle G2/10 – DISCLAIMERS FOR DISCLOSED SUBJECT-MATTER by Nadja Muncke and Klemens Stratmann On August 30, 2011 the Enlarged Board of Appeal rendered its decision on the admissibility of a...
View ArticleOxycodone – An Unfinished Battle and an Undisclosed Question
Hoffmann Eitle Litigation and EPO Oppositions/Appeals surrounding a controlled-release dosage form of the drug oxycodone, a morphine-like opioid analgesic developed in 1918, has kept Europe’s Pharma IP...
View ArticleBoehringer Ingelheim v. Teva c.s., District Court Utrecht (Rechtbank...
Brinkhof The Court decided it has jurisdiction in preliminary proceedings in respect of the alleged unlawful act by a Dutch company, consisting of facilitating – as the holder of a marketing...
View ArticleElan Pharma v. Ethypharm, District Court Paris (Tribunal de Grande Instance...
Pinsent MasonsPinsent Masons The Paris District Court clarified its interpretation of Article 123 EPC regarding disclaimer allowability and allowed a disclaimer restoring novelty of a patent. Click...
View ArticleNon-disclosed Disclaimers and the “Remaining Subject-Matter Test” of G 2/10
Hoffmann Eitle The main principles applicable for assessing whether a non-disclosed disclaimer meets the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC have been laid out in the decision G 1/03 of the Enlarged...
View Article“Self-adhesive tape” – You better limit your Swiss patents in good time
Meyerlustenberger Lachenal The juxtapositon of patent limitations in national nullity proceedings and before national patent offices on the one hand and according to article 105a EPC on the other hand...
View ArticleT 2130/11 or how to escape the added matter – clarity trap for disclaimers
Hoffmann Eitle The strict formalistic approach adopted by the EPO on many issues can easily lead to the applicant being trapped between various requirements of the EPC. One particularly well-known...
View ArticleClik here to view.
China’s Supreme Court Clarified the Doctrine of Prosecution History Estoppel
In China, a patent owner’s statements made during prosecution or invalidation may give rise to prosecution history estoppel (or prosecution disclaimer), which precludes the patent owner from...
View Article
