Browse Options
Hospira v. Novartis, Court of Appeal of England and Wales, 19 December 2013 ”

The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the High Court (Arnold J) that claims concerning treatment of osteoporosis with zoledronic acid were not entitled to an earlier priority date and were therefore invalid over an intervening publication. The Court held that the disclosure in the priority document was either too general or too specific, and therefore did not support a claim to the use of zoledronic acid administered intravenously about once a year to treat osteoporosis with a dose of 2-10mg.

The full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.

Fahrzeugscheibe, Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), 16 April 2013 ”

The FCJ held that the right to claim priority, which is in fact the right to file a follow-up application, can be transferred to a third party who was not the applicant of the earlier application. This transfer is governed by the law of the earlier application, in this case German law. Neither German law nor the EPC requires a specific form for such a transfer. Therefore, a transfer is also possible implicitly.

The full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.

UV-unempfindliche Druckplatte (UV insensitive lithographic printing plate), Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), 14 August 2012

The Supreme Court held that claiming priority of an earlier application requires a direct and unambiguous disclosure in the priority document of all features of the technical teaching as defined in the claims. If the claimed invention is characterized by a particular property of one of its components that has not (clearly) been disclosed in the priority document, and that permits a person of ordinary skill to make a deliberate selection out of a range of different embodiments (here: insensitivity to UV light), the priority document lacks a clear and unambiguous disclosure of the invention.

Click here for the full text of this case.

A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluwer [...]

The Prior Art Effect Of PCT Applications Under The America Invents Act

Now that we are less than one month away from implementation of the First-Inventor-To-File provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA), stakeholders are considering whether to file new patent applications now, to secure examination under the current First-To-Invent patent system, or wait until March 16, 2013, so that the applications will be governed by the new U.S. patent laws. While there are a few situations where delaying filing could be advantageous, stakeholders do not need to wait to file their patent applications until March 16, 2013 in order to maximize their prior art effect.

35 USC § 102(e) Versus 35 USC § 102(a)(2)

The prior art effect of a published U.S. or PCT appl [...]

T1496/11, European Patent Office (Appeals Court), 12 September 2012

The Technical Board of Appeal ruled that a claim of an opposed patent was anticipated by the publication of a divisional of that same patent. Because the claim contained an intermediate generalization with respect to the priority document, the claim was not entitled to priority. The divisional was however entitled to claim priority for the description of an embodiment that fell under the claim, and was therefore damaging for the novelty of the patent.

Click here for the full text of this case.

A summary of this case will be posted on

Oxycodone, Borgarting Appelate Court (Borgarting Lagmannrett), 20 December 2010

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 would result in lower dose variation and easier titration than existing formulations with morphine. The patents were held to satisfy the requirements for novelty and inventive step. The court dismissed ratiopharm’s invalidity arguments and held that ratiopharm’s oxycodone product infringed one of the patents.

Click here for the full text of this case. A summ [...]

Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...