<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>Kluwer Patent Blog</title>
	<link>http://kluwerpatentblog.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:42:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	<!-- generator="WordPress/3.2.1" -->

	<item>
		<title>Misleading by arrogation of a patent despite reinstatement in the status quo ante</title>
		<description><![CDATA[by Stephan Lieck The Düsseldorf Regional Court had to decide whether it is misleading under competition law that the former proprietor of a patent advertises with the fact that there is patent protection for a product (wrongful representation of an &#8230; <a href="http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2012/02/03/misleading-by-arrogation-of-a-patent-despite-reinstatement-in-the-status-quo-ante/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<link>http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2012/02/03/misleading-by-arrogation-of-a-patent-despite-reinstatement-in-the-status-quo-ante/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Inventive step of a stereoselective glycosylation process</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Gemcitabine is part of the family of nucleosides which are compounds constituted of two chemical parts: a sugar bound to a nucleobase through a glycosidic bond. As any nucleoside can have two isomers (the alpha-anomer and the beta-anomer) depending on &#8230; <a href="http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2012/02/01/inventive-step-of-a-stereoselective-glycosylation-process/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<link>http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2012/02/01/inventive-step-of-a-stereoselective-glycosylation-process/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>U.S. Patent Reform: What Already Has Changed, What Lies Ahead</title>
		<description><![CDATA[On September 16, 2011, President Obama signed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act into law, making the most sweeping changes to U.S. patent law since at least the 1950’s. Many of the provisions can be broadly classified into those that serve &#8230; <a href="http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2012/01/30/u-s-patent-reform-what-already-has-changed-what-lies-ahead/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<link>http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2012/01/30/u-s-patent-reform-what-already-has-changed-what-lies-ahead/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Commercial courts of Barcelona go one step further towards specialisation</title>
		<description><![CDATA[There seems to be ample consensus in that Justice is better administered by specialised Judges than by non-specialised Judges. With this view in mind, in 1993 the Barcelona Court of Appeal took a groundbreaking step forward by conferring exclusive competence &#8230; <a href="http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2012/01/27/commercial-courts-of-barcelona-go-one-step-further-towards-specialisation/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<link>http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2012/01/27/commercial-courts-of-barcelona-go-one-step-further-towards-specialisation/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Is it obvious how to apply “obvious to try”?</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Although a number of issues were raised as to the validity of two patents in the recent Omnipharm v Merial [2001] EWHC 3393 (Pat) case, the most interesting feature of the case was the judge’s approach to the question of &#8230; <a href="http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2012/01/24/is-it-obvious-how-to-apply-%e2%80%9cobvious-to-try%e2%80%9d/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<link>http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2012/01/24/is-it-obvious-how-to-apply-%e2%80%9cobvious-to-try%e2%80%9d/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>FCJ rules that the skilled person will look for approaches already provided by a standard when wanting to improve that standard</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The German Federal Court of Justice recently issued a decision entitled &#8216;E-Mail via SMS&#8217;, November 22, 2011, X ZR 58/10, in which it was found that when seeking to improve a data structure prescribed in an international standard, a skilled &#8230; <a href="http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2012/01/21/fcj-rules-that-the-skilled-person-will-look-for-approaches-already-provided-by-a-standard-when-wanting-to-improve-that-standard-3/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<link>http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2012/01/21/fcj-rules-that-the-skilled-person-will-look-for-approaches-already-provided-by-a-standard-when-wanting-to-improve-that-standard-3/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Apple v.  Motorola: No compulsory licence defence</title>
		<description><![CDATA[rospatt osten pross Motorola obtained a first instance judgement against Apple, because iPhone and iPad infringe the European patent No. 1 010 336 declared essential to the GPRS standard by ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute). Apple&#8217;s defence of a compulsory &#8230; <a href="http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2012/01/20/apple-v-motorola-no-compulsory-licence-defence/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<link>http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2012/01/20/apple-v-motorola-no-compulsory-licence-defence/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Panitumumab, Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht),18 August 2011</title>
		<description><![CDATA[An SPC can only be granted if the product falls within the scope of protection of the basic patent. If the basic patent claims a combination of two known components (i.e.  a monoclonal antibody with a neoplastic agent), that combination &#8230; <a href="http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2012/01/13/panitumumab-federal-administrative-court-bundesverwaltungsgericht18-august-2011/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<link>http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2012/01/13/panitumumab-federal-administrative-court-bundesverwaltungsgericht18-august-2011/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>R3/10, European Patent Office (EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal), 29 September 2011</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) allowed review of the conduct of the Technical Board of Appeal (TBA), since  the TBA rejected a main request for lack of inventive step which had not yet been discussed during oral proceedings. The &#8230; <a href="http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2012/01/13/r310-european-patent-office-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-29-september-2011/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<link>http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2012/01/13/r310-european-patent-office-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-29-september-2011/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>BPO v. AstraZeneca (II), Supreme Administrative Court (Bърховен касационен съд), 8 December 2010</title>
		<description><![CDATA[AstraZeneca filed a request with the Patent Office (PO) for the publication in the PO&#8217;s official bullet of a court judgment invalidating a previous PO&#8217;s decision regarding the termination of one of AstraZeneca&#8217;s patents. The PO denied AstraZeneca&#8217;s request for &#8230; <a href="http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2012/01/13/bpo-v-astrazeneca-ii-supreme-administrative-court-b%d1%8a%d1%80%d1%85%d0%be%d0%b2%d0%b5%d0%bd-%d0%ba%d0%b0%d1%81%d0%b0%d1%86%d0%b8%d0%be%d0%bd%d0%b5%d0%bd-%d1%81%d1%8a%d0%b4-8-december-2010/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<link>http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2012/01/13/bpo-v-astrazeneca-ii-supreme-administrative-court-b%d1%8a%d1%80%d1%85%d0%be%d0%b2%d0%b5%d0%bd-%d0%ba%d0%b0%d1%81%d0%b0%d1%86%d0%b8%d0%be%d0%bd%d0%b5%d0%bd-%d1%81%d1%8a%d0%b4-8-december-2010/</link>
			</item>
</channel>
</rss>

