The Federal Institute of Intellectual Property can also issue a supplementary protection certificate to an applicant if a certificate for the same active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) or…
The difference between "inventiveness" within the meaning of the Austrian Patent Act and "inventive step" within the meaning of the Austrian Utility Model Act is too small to distinguish between…
by Miriam Büttner
This is a follow-up to the article of my colleague, Eike Schaper, of 17 August 2010 in which he refers to a ruling of the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal concerning the value in patent…
The issue of whether obtaining a marketing authorisation before the expiry of a patent covering the product that the marketing authorisation concerns will infringe upon the right of the patentee has…
As previously report on this blog (29 June 2011), on 20 June 2011 Floyd J. granted an ex parte interim injunction, sometimes called a “temporary restraining order” preventing Teva UK Limited (and two…
The readers will recall that one of the requirements for obtaining preliminary injunctions introduced by Directive 2004/48 (the so-called "Enforcement Directive") is proving that there is an "…
In October 2009, we reported the UK Court of Appeal’s referral to the European Court of Justice (as it was then known) regarding the meaning of the term ‘the first authorisation to place the product…
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 disclaimer whose…
The opponent relied on a document that was distributed in a meeting arranged by himself. The Board of Appeal held that in the present case, it did not share the view of the patentee that it was…
The Opposition Division upheld a patent in a decision finding novelty over D1 and inventive step over D1 in combination with D3 or D4. The opponent filed a statement of grounds of appeal containing a…
