Menu
Browse Options
New “PCT Direct” Service of the EPO – an opportunity for PCT applicants at the EPO to comment on objections raised by the EPO in an earlier search

Under the new PCT Direct initiative announced in the Official Journal, it will, from 1 November 2014, be possible to respond to objections raised by the EPO against the priority application on filing the international application. This significantly streamlines the process of applying for an international application, and essentially gives the applicant an extra opportunity in the International Phase to overcome objections already raised by the EPO against the priority application, by submitting arguments or modifications with the international application.

Public Prior Use of a Pharmaceutical Preparation (T 2458/09)

Although more than 20 years have passed since the Enlarged Board of Appeal issued its decision G 1/92, there is still little case law which provides guidance on how to establish the structure and properties of a particular medicament in a manner so as to be able to rely on the same as a piece of prior art in opposition proceedings.

In G 1/92, the Enlarged Board rejected the notion of T 93/89 that the ingredients of a commercially available product are not made available to the public unless there is reason for experts to investigate its composition by chemical analysis, and it held that the chemical composition of a product is state of the art when the product as such is available to the pub [...]

Higher Regional Court Dusseldorf Grants a Patent Co-owner a Right to Compensation

In its decision of 7 August 2014 (docket no. I-2 U 91/13 – ‘Garage Roller Door’), the Higher Regional Court Dusseldorf granted a non-using patent co-owner a right to compensation from the other co-owner that uses the patent and profits from this use. The parties are competitors in the field of manufacturing and selling garage roller doors. The Court granted the right on the basis of equity under Sec. 745 (2) German Civil Code, since the following conditions were fulfilled: (1) the co-owner’s contribution (5%) to the patented invention as laid down in claim 1 of the patent was actually used in the other co-owner’s products, (2) an explicit claim to compensation by the contributing c [...]

What happened to/in Summer 2014 in Germany?

To the extent that summer 2014 existed at all in central Europe, experts agree that it is now definitely over. There is some controversy whether we ever had summer in Germany this year, but at least it was proven that life without air conditioning is possible.

Meanwhile, the Munich IP Community is busily preparing for Oktoberfest starting tomorrow. So while we are all still sober, time for a litte summary on the latest developments in the case law of the German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) in “Summer” 2014.

In one decision (X ZR 36/13), the FCJ took the opportunity to explain its current thinking on the scope of equivalence a bit further. In the decision under appeal, the Higher Regional C [...]

Step by Step towards Inventive Step – Determining the Closest Prior Art comes first (R 5/13 et al.)

In the oral proceedings held in the EPO appeal case T 1760/11 the Board of Appeal (BoA) 3.3.01 selected one single closest prior art (CPA) document for the inventive step assessment and then denied the opponents the opportunity to present inventive step attacks starting from other CPAs. Petitions for review under Article 112a EPC were filed. The BoA’s denial did not constitute a violation of the right to be heard, said the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) in the decisions R 5/13 and (identical) R 9/13 to R13/13.

The underlying Case of T 1760/11

The issue under discussion was the assessment of inventive step. The Opposition Division had earlier revoked the patent inter alia for lack of inventiv [...]

Infringement proceedings outside Germany do not provide justification for a negative declaratory action in Germany regarding the same European patent

The Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf has ruled in its decision of 20 March 2014 (docket number 12 W 8.14) that an explicit allegation of entitlement to a national part of a European patent, e.g. by sending a warning letter or the filing of a court action, does not include an implicit allegation of entitlement (stillschweigende Berühmung) to the other parts of the same European patent in the respective other countries, nor does this provide grounds for declaratory interest (Feststellungsinteresse) in Germany, i.e. a legitimate interest in filing a negative declaratory action regarding the German part of the European patent.

The circumstances resulting in the German proceedings were infringe [...]

Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...