One of the issues which will be discussed at the next annual meeting of AIPPI, due to take place in Rio de Janeiro in October 2015, is Q244, entitled “Inventorship of multinational inventions.”
In today’s world, it is becoming increasingly frequent for inventions to be the outcome of teamwork conducted by persons from different jurisdictions. This, coupled with the lack of a universally-accepted concept of “inventor” and the “local first-filing requirement” contained in the laws of many countries, raises formidable challenges for applicants. Sometimes they are confronted with legal requirements from several countries which cannot be simultaneously fulfilled, which places applicants in an imp [...]
The Patents Court has allowed an application for pre-action disclosure of a subset of patent licences to a potential defendant to a claim for infringement, so as to allow that potential defendant to quantify any claim against it prior to the commencement of proceedings.
The board refused to apply Rule 56 EPC (filing missing drawings) to allow replacement of a poor quality drawing in a patent application by a drawing from the priority document. Although J2/12 had allowed replacement under Rule 56 in the case that it could be established that wrong drawings were filed, this applied only to errors as to the identity of the drawings and it did not extend to the case that the correct drawings had been filed with poor visual quality.
Our previous post of June 2014 “Patent revocation actions in France: mind the slot! ” presented and criticized the decision of 25 April 2013 of the tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 3rd chamber, 1st section, Evinerude v. Giraudeau and Aair Lichens, applying to patent revocation actions the new time limitation period of five years adopted by the statute № 2008-561 of 17 June 2008 for actions qualified, under French law classification, as personal actions or real actions based on movable assets: according to this decision, the five-year limitation period running from the date on which the plaintiff “becomes aware or should have been aware of the facts entitling him to start” [...]
The end of July always brings a flurry of decisions from English Patents Courts at all levels as the Judges, understandably, seek to clear their desks before the summer vacation. This year was no exception with at least half a dozen judgments concerning patents being handed down in the space of two weeks. Among them was a gem from the Court of Appeal in the Teva v Leo  EWCA 779 case in which the substantive judgment was given by Sir Robin Jacob with whom Kitchin and King LJJ agreed.
One of the most pleasing aspects of the decision is its length – a mere 9 pages including the cover page. It is also easy to read with Sir Robin, in customary style, deploying short sentences, colourf [...]
On 25 July 2015, the Spanish Official State Gazette published the text of Act 24/2015, of 24 July 2015, on Patents (“New Patents Act” or “the new Law”), which is due to come into force on 1 April 2017. Although a blog is too short a place to discuss a law that has 186 articles, 10 “additional provisions”, 6 “transitory provisions”, 1 “derogatory provision”, and 9 “final provisions”, what follows is a short account of the aspects that the author finds of particular interest:
The first aspect deals with the examination and granting procedure, which has been changed completely. The New Patents Act has abandoned the “à la carte” examination procedure, whereby applicants were free to choose whet [...]