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…
This decision deals with the scope of the obligation of a plaintiff to concentrate actions in one case if these are directed against the same defendant regarding the same infringing device, but based…
In case of actual or potential discrepancies between claim language and the patent description which might allow a broader interpretation the Supreme Court confirms that the claim may not be…
The book ‘The Granting of European Patents’ by M. van Empel has recently been added to the (subscription) website kluwerpatentlaw.com. The book was published in 1975, was out of print within a few…
T 777/08: When is a Polymorph Inventive?
by Matthias Wolf and Alexander Dehner
We report on the recent decision T 777/08 of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO dated May 24, 2011, relating to the issue…
Italy has recently filed a complaint with the Court of Justice against Council’s decision of 10 March 2011 no. 167 authorising enhanced cooperation under Art. 20 TEU in the area of the creation of…
In its 2006 decision in the matter called GAT/LuK the ECJ held that Article 22-4 of the Brussels Regulation – which provides for exclusive national jurisdiction regarding the validity of patents and…
One of the possible courses of action open to patentees when they suspect that a competitor may be preparing the launch of a product that may infringe a patent in force is to send a warning letter.…
