Ā I am happy to announce the release of my book US Patent Law for European Patent Professionals.
An understanding of US patent law within the context of the US legal system has becomeā¦
This time we take a look at various decisions that share one thing in common ā piercing the corporate veil doctrine. Even if these rulings are not purely patent law cases, they will definitely haveā¦
Although this is a patent law blog a recently published decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in an appeal against a dismissed request for a preliminary injunction in the copyright sector isā¦
With its judgment of March 5, 2015 (I-2 U 16/14), the Higher Regional Court (HRC) Dusseldorf reversed the first-instance decision and has now come to same conclusion as did the High Court of Justiceā¦
Goods placed in transit proceedings do not infringe a patent in the transit country. It is not relevant whether the goods were placed in so-called āT1ā external transit proceedings or in āT2ā transitā¦
Based on method claims, German Patent Law does not only grant the patentee an exclusive right to exercise the method on the German territory, but also a monopoly to offer, bring into circulation orā¦
In the blog published on 17 March 2015, we discussed the judgment dated 12 March 2015 of the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") handed down in response to the preliminary questionsā¦
Recently, a number of European IP law professors (and certain lawyers) signed a motion against the EU patent package. The motion mentions 29 signatories of which 13 originate from Belgium. The otherā¦
On 24 March, 2015, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO, the final judicial arbiter of the interpretation of the European Patent Convention, issued Decision G 3/14 addressing the question of whenā¦
At the end of January, we reported the Warner-Lambert v Actavis decision of 21 January 2015, in which Arnold J refused to grant Warner-Lambert interim relief in relation to an apprehension of patentā¦