The Borgarting Court of Appeal overturned the district court decision which revoked the patents in suit for lack of inventive step. The Court held that even if oxycodone had been known and used to treat pain as an alternative to morphine, the skilled person could not have predicted that a controlled release formulation with oxycodone…

In Denmark, a patentee may opt to apply for a utility model registration in addition to a patent, provided that the conditions for the grant of both rights are fulfilled. One of the strategic advantages of applying for both rights in Denmark is that the utility model registration is not subject to as thorough a…

Yesterday the Dutch Court of Appeal closed ranks with six out of nine jurisdictions in which the European Central Bank (ECB) started nullity actions against Document Security Systems’ (DSS) patent related to anti-forgery measures (EP 455 750). The Dutch Court of Appeal revoked the patent for added matter over the application as originally filed. The…

Following decision G 1/03, the Board concluded that a disclaimer that is used to remove subject-matter falling under the prohibition of Article 53(a) EPC in combination with Rule 28(c) EPC, is allowable. The full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.  

The Federal Court of Justice confirmed the legal reasoning of the Federal Patent Court that a company that continued the business of another company, while it was founded independently from the continued company and does not take over the trade name under which it conducted business, is not bound by a non-contest clause between the…

The selection of explicitly disclosed borderline values defining several (sub)ranges, in order to form a new (narrower) subrange, is not contestable under Article 123 (2) EPC when the ranges belong to the same list. However, the combination of an individual range from this list with another individual range from a second list that relates to…

In the search report of the patent application several prior art references were mentioned that were not described in the patent application as originally filed, while they were known to the applicant. The Examining Division had decided that Rule 42(1) EPC 2000 would not allow a later introduction of the discussion of the prior art…