It could be argued that 2013 is proving to be somewhat unkind to UK patentees when it comes to the issues of sufficiency and priority. On 25 June 2013, in a typically comprehensive judgment running…
and Bernd Kröger.
A combination of two pharmaceutical ingredients, i.e. leflunomide and teriflunomide is to be considered obvious if the person skilled in the art uses an obvious process to obtain…
The Stockholm District Court held the Swedish part of a European patent concerning a method of growing two or more plants invalid, due to lack of inventive step. Despite requests for limitations by…
In a combined patent infringement and nullity case, the Svea Court of Appeal upheld the validity of Roche Diagnostics' European patent as far as Sweden was concerned, but held, other than the…
One of the big difficulties in the everyday evaluation of inventive step revolves around the role that the problem underlying the invention should play in such evaluation. Two examples of more recent…
The PI judge in the District Court of The Hague held that under certain circumstances, provisional cross-border jurisdiction can be derived from art. 31 Regulation (EC) 44/2001, which would require a…
In order to determine whether the features that distinguish the patent claims over the prior art can be considered when assessing inventive ste p and novelty, the Board must consider whether these…
The Paris District Court clarified its interpretation of Article 123 EPC regarding disclaimer allowability and allowed a disclaimer restoring novelty of a patent.
Click here for the full text of this…
In its “Leflunomid” decision of 24 July 2012 (Case X ZR 126/09), the FCJ declared a patent claim to be invalid which covered a combination of leflunomide and teriflunomide, on the grounds that it had…
