by Rachel Mumby Bexsero, the Meningitis B vaccine marketed by GSK, has been the subject of many newspaper headlines in the UK over the last year, with parents seeking to persuade the UK Government to offer the vaccine to all children under the age of 11 as a matter of routine. Few will have been…

Swiss Federal Patent Court, Case No O2013_006 (7 October 2015) The Swiss Federal Patent Court partially revoked/upheld the Swiss Part of EP 0 944 937 B1 concerning a hydraulic pressing device in nullity proceedings initiated by the Swiss Von Arx AG against the patent owner, the German Gustav Klauke GmbH. The patent in suit pertains…

This past week I had an interesting hearing at the EPO where an opposition was based, inter alia, on public prior use. The opposition division heard a number of witnesses on the question whether the features of a specific device had been publicly available. Prior to the hearing, the opponent had to admit that there…

When does the demonstration of a model at a trade fair, or a similar limited availability of a product, constitute novelty-destroying prior disclosure? Although it will depend on the patent claims, the public’s opportunity to investigate the model may be important as demonstrated in the recent case of Wagner v Earlex*. As of the implementation…

The English High Court has refused to grant summary judgment to LG Electronics in relation to validity of certain patents, holding that, due to the uncertainty of the legal issue concerning the confidentiality of the prior disclosure relied on, the matter was not relevant for summary judgment. LG Electronics (“LG”) sued Sony for infringement of…

The opponent relied on a document that was distributed in a meeting arranged by himself. The Board of Appeal held that in the present case, it did not share the view of the patentee that it was impossible for him to prove non-distribution and that therefore the burden of proof was with the opponent. In…

The Appellant had obtained both utility model and patent protection for a mechanical invention. The Defendant argued that the subject matter of both rights did not fulfil the novelty requirement, because it had been disclosed to the public by demonstrations of the invention to both individual persons and corporate entities prior to the priority date….

The Federal Court of Justice further clarifies the scope of disclosure of a prior art document and the criteria for determining inventive step after the landmark decision ‘Olanzapin’. More specifically, the Court ruled that: a) a prior art disclosure of an enantiomeric compound does not clearly and unambiguously disclose the actual enantiomers unless the disclosure…