by Steven Willis Given the furore surrounding Birss J’s decision on the non-technical issues in Unwired Planet v Huawei earlier this month, which included the first determination of FRAND terms by an English Court (reported on by my colleague Rachael here), it would have been easy to miss the first appellate Court judgment on the…

The federal district court in Tyler, Texas, correctly denied Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.’s (“Core Wireless’s”) motion for judgment as a matter of law that Apple infringed a claim of a Core Wireless patent directed to a means for sending packet data from a mobile station such as a cellular telephone to a cellular system or…

by Nicholas Round At the start of this month, the UK Supreme Court took a break from its recent post-Brexit work interpreting (and developing) constitutional principles to hear an intellectual property matter. This rare Supreme court foray for a patent produced a ripple of excitement across the UK IP litigation community not least because (uniquely…

In an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding challenging a SimpleAir patent that described a method of transmitting data to remote computing devices, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in concluding that IPR petitioner Google failed to establish that a combination of prior art references rendered the challenged claims unpatentably obvious, the U.S….

The enlarged board of appeal (EBA) of the European patent office effectively ended the possibility of poisonous priority. The EBA held that entitlement to partial priority may not be refused for a claim encompassing alternative subject-matter by virtue of generic expressions (generic “OR” claims) if the priority document discloses part of that subject matter in…

The federal district court in Wilmington, Delaware, did not abuse its discretion in finding that Bayer CropScience’s infringement suit against agrochemical rival Dow AgroSciences over soybean gene technology qualified as an “exceptional case” warranting an award of attorney fees under Section 285 of the Patent Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit…

According to sec. 1 para 3 no. 5 Austrian Patent Act, programs for computers are not patentable per se. However a computer program may be patentable if it fulfills the technical character requirement. The Supreme Court confirmed that the technical effect is to be determined from the content of the computer program in the context…

Although there is a well-known crime novel by James M. Cain saying the contrary, the postman does not always ring twice, particularly not in patent nullity proceedings when it comes to the service of the complaint under the Hague Convention. Recently, two patents were declared null and void in Switzerland. In both proceedings the revocation…

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err when it concluded that the claims of a patent relating to the use of descriptive text combined with a rollover viewing area in the user interface of an Internet search engine were unpatentable as obvious in light of prior art, the U.S. Court of Appeals for…

The UK Patents Court upheld the validity of Wyeth’s patent EP(UK) 2,343,308 relating to a combination product comprising a 2086 protein and a PorA protein used in meningitis B vaccines, rejecting GSK’s allegations of lack of entitlement to two of the claimed priority dates, lack of novelty, obviousness (both conventional and so-called “AgrEvo” obviousness), insufficiency…