Menu
Browse Options
Amended Guidelines on Independence of the Swiss Federal Patent Court became effective on 1 January 2015 – An inspiring model for the UPC?

As posted here the Swiss Federal Patent Court had to amend its Guidelines on Independence after the Swiss Federal Supreme Court had lifted a decision of the Federal Patent Court concerning the recusal of one of its non-permanent judges on 27 August 2013 in a case concerning the Nespresso coffee capsules.

The revised Guidelines on Independence became effective on 1 January 2015.

The revised Guidelines are not only interesting for the judges and the parties that are involved in proceedings before the Swiss Federal Patent Court but also for those who have to give thought to the implementation of article 7 of the Statute of the Unified Patent Court for the judges pool of the Unified Patent Cour [...]

MERRY CHRISTMAS! WAS JESUS’ BIRTH THE FIRST CASE OF “LUCINA SINE CONCUBITU” (PARTHENOGENESIS) IN HISTORY?

On 18 December 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) published a landmark judgment in Case C-364/13 International Stem Cell Corporation v. Comptroller General of Patents, in which it gave the following reply to a question referred by the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (Patents Court), of England and Wales regarding the meaning of “human embryos” in article 6(2) (c) of Directive 98/44/EC: 

Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions must be interpreted as meaning that an unfertilised human ovum whose division and further development have been stimulated [...]

Want to revoke a patent? Call the inventor

The Italian Supreme Court recently (and surprisingly) said that inventors must be named as co-defendants in revocation actions.

In 2010 I wrote a post concerning the requirement to name inventors as co-defendants in Italian revocation actions. I reported that the Court of Appeal of Milan had established a principle whereby named inventors had to be called in revocation actions and, if they were not, proceedings could not reach the stage of decision. This was based on the then in place provision of Article 122 (4) of the of Italian IP Code, according to which “Any action aimed at the revocation of an industrial property title shall be brought against all persons listed in the register as r [...]

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 [...]

Not accepting an undertaking entails an intention to market the allegedly infringing product

On 12 September 2014, the Barcelona Court of Appeal (Section 15) handed down a decision confirming a preliminary injunction preventing a Spanish company from marketing capsules claimed to be compatible with what is known as the Nespresso® system, which raises a handful of interesting legal points.

The first point of interest discussed was whether or not the appeal proceedings against the first instance decision which had ordered a preliminary injunction should be discontinued after the Court of First Instance (Barcelona Commercial Court number 5) handed down a judgment on the merits, upholding the infringement complaint.  After the judgment in the main proceedings came out, the complainant [...]

Is the Federal Patent Court obliged to appoint a technical expert?

by Bernward Zollner

In a recent decision of the Federal Supreme Court dated 26 August 2014 (docket-No. X ZB 19/12) a further appeal of an applicant pursuing his patent application was rejected. Already the German Patent and Trademark Office had rejected the patent application. The Appeal of the applicant against this decision had been rejected by the Federal Patent Court. Against this decision the applicant submitted a further appeal to the Federal Supreme Court arguing that the Federal Patent Court should have appointed a technical expert. The Federal Supreme Court has rejected this further appeal.

In the reasoning it is pointed out that the Technical Senate of the Federal Patent Court does [...]

Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...