The Patent and Trial Appeal Board erred in dismissing Airbus S.A.S.’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on a lack of substantial new question of patentability because the Director had already ordered inter partes reexamination, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corporation, July 17, 2015, Lourie, A.).
This time I want to introduce a fellow author from Sweden, Kristian Fredrikson, who promised to write about this interesting recent decision from the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen 18 June 2015, case no B6341-13). It does not concern patents per se but an infringer’s liability for a third party’s infringement after an injunction has been decided, and it’s principle content should be directly applicable in similar situations where a patent have been infringed.
A Swedish furniture company (“the infringer”) sold chairs (“Stilo”) that were found by the courts to infringe the copyright pertaining to a well-known Swedish design chair held by another Swedish furniture company (“th [...]
1) By the end of May, Italy had announced to be willing to become a “unitary patent member state”. Last week the Italian government formalized its intention by means of an official request to the European Commission to join the enhanced cooperation regarding the unitary patent. This means that the Unitary Patent club will have 26 member states by (the latest) November 2015.
2) A second major breakthrough came from the side of the Select Committee of the Administrative Council of the EPO. This committee is to d [...]
No, not what you might perhaps have hoped for. A lot is currently ongoing at the European Patent Office about the status, the independence, the future location and the (self-)administration of the EPO’s Boards of Appeal, but this blogger is neither sufficiently well-informed nor competent to comment on the big picture. So let’s stick to our guns and praise Board of Appeal 3.3.07 for a little ex-parte appeal decision (T 1882/12) that combines clarity with common sense in an admirable fashion.
The decision relates to a problem that many patent practitioners have been encountering for a number of years. Rule 162 EPC along with the EPO’s Rules relating to Fees definitely discourage applicants fr [...]
The Dutch draft legislation to implement the Unitary Patent Package in the Netherlands includes an interesting ‘safety net’ provision. If registration of unitary effect of a European patent is rejected by the EPO and this is confirmed by the UPC (as the case may be), there will be a possibility to validate the patent in the Netherlands, regardless of normal time limits.
Marc van der Burg, legal advisor of the Netherlands Patent Office (part of the Netherlands Enterprise Agency) and closely involved in drafting the legislation, pointed this out in an interview with Kluwer IP Law.
As Van der Burg explained, the European Patent Office will be in charge of registering requests for unitary ef [...]
When defining the technical problem underlying an invention, it may not simply be assumed that the person skilled in the art needed to address a particular problem. On the contrary, the technical problem must be formulated so generally and neutrally that the question as to which incentives a person skilled in the art obtained from the state of art, arises only when examining inventive step.