EU IP-PorTal’s Post

Are “carry-over requests” – i.e. auxiliary requests that have been filed during the #opposition proceedings but have not been decided on because a higher ranking request has been found allowable – only maintained if the proprietor expressly states this at the end of the oral proceedings? In the #EPO board of appeal decision T 1522/20 / Direct Drive Endoscopy system published on 9 Dec 2024, the EPO found that the patent proprietor's confirmation of the auxiliary requests at the beginning of the oral proceedings meant that the auxiliary requests were maintained throughout the proceedings The board was therefore not authorized to disregard any carry-over request in the appeal proceedings. Further, and not surprisingly, the Board of Appeal decided that it is presumed in the patentee’s favor that a valid #priority transfer has taken place as long as the challenging party does not provide proof for rebuttal of presumption. This follows G 1/22 and G 2/22. Based thereon the contested patent has been maintained based on “carry-over” auxiliary request 4. We welcome this decision as it takes into account the actual will of the parties instead of giving priority to excessive formal requirements. Please feel free to reach out to us! Markus Rieck and Christian Läufer welcome discussions on intellectual property strategies. #MedTec #IntellectualProperty #carry_over_requests

💉 New medical data 📈 In the decision T1741/22 the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) lately focused on clarity and inventive step of a computer-implemented invention. Click here to read more: https://lnkd.in/ePh4F4vV

The UPC Central Division of Munich issued their first decision on a standalone revocation action (Sanofi vs Amgen), successfully fulfilling their commitment to deliver a first instance decision within approximatively a year. This landmark decision is strikingly clear and makes multiple references to the existing UPC CoA case law (Nanostring vs 10X Genomics). While patent practitioners will find the Court's assessment of inventive step quite familiar, the decision highlights salient points that build upon this fast-growing body of case law: - The skilled person is not an academic wishing to explore and understand a biological pathway, but is rather set out to solve a problem. They would not be overly cautious (nor creative) and would not analyse every experiment in a prior art document in isolation. - A starting point is realistic if its teaching would have been of interest to a skilled person who was seeking to develop a similar product or method which has a similar underlying problem as the claimed invention. There can be several realistic starting points and it is not necessary to identify the “most promising” starting point. The claimed subject matter has to be inventive over any realistic starting points. If it is established that one prior art document is realistic, the Court does not have to examine whether another starting point is “more promising”.

The Central Division in Paris* has upheld the validity of the UPC parts of a patent that was previously revoked by the English Patents Court in 2022 (a decision upheld by the English Court of Appeal). The difference of opinion between the courts** turns on the weight attached to the evidence of the expert for the revocation claimant, when addressing whether the invention was obvious over prior art called Zimmerling. Speaking of the qualifications of the expert, the Paris court states that: “being an inventor of over 100 patents for medical devices which cover a variety of aspects of cochlear implants does not meet the profile of the hypothetical skilled person for an inventive step assessment who has no inventive imagination and skills, no ability for creative thinking and is a captive of established prejudices in the relevant field. For these reasons, the panel deviates from the reasoning and reaches a different conclusion than the High Court of England and Wales in its Judgment [[2022] EWHC 1345 (Pat)] which attached great significance to the expert statement…” In merits cases, it is not very unusual for party appointed expert evidence to be used in the UPC. But this decision highlights a tension between the level of expertise that is desirable to give an expert credibility with the court, as against an opponent’s expert, and the relatively low level of expertise expected of the hypothetical skilled person. The Central Division Paris, at least, may prefer experts who more closely resemble the latter. The decision may also illustrate a broader difference in attitude to party expert evidence compared to the English courts. *Advanced Bionics, UPC_CFI_338/2023, UPC_CFI_410/2023 (26 December 2024). **The patent was also upheld by the Board of Appeal in the EPO. #EPO #UPC #patentlitigation

Noctiluca with patent! European Patent Office has granted a European patent to #Noctiluca. It concerns families of proprietary emitters developed by our team, demonstrating excellent performance as TADF-emitting materials in various light-emitting devices such as OLEDs. The information regarding the grant of the patent entitled "TADF materials comprising 4-(3-(2-(10h-phenoxazin-10-yl)pyridin-5-yl)-9h-carbazol-9-yl)benzonitrile derivatives and related compounds for use in OLEDs" has been published today in the European Patent Bulletin. 👏👏👏 We extend our thanks to the entire team which developed the invention and conducted the EPO's proceedings, in particular inventors: Piotr Trzaska, Mariusz Bosiak, Alicja Zielińska, Marcin Rakowiecki, Andrzej Wolan, so as Zuzanna Kowalkiewicz, Noctiluca's European Patent Attorney and Justyna Gromowska, Intellectual Property Specialist. Thank you and congratulations! #epo #patent #intellectualproperty #TADF #deeptech

UPC departs from EPO selection principle in novelty analysis: Dexcom v Abbott According to established European Patent Office practice, a selection of one or more elements from a single list of specifically disclosed elements does not confer novelty. However, in Dexcom v Abbott the UPC Paris Local Division concluded that a single selection was sufficient to render a claim novel. Nathaniel Wand and Florian Zobel, report: https://dycip.com/3yEY5ew #unifiedpatentcourt #upc #patentnovelty #patentclaims #dexcom #abbott

Judge-rapporteur Catallozzi just held that the mere fact of operating in the same field as the patent in dispute is not sufficient to establish a specific interest in the case documents on the part of the applicant and thus rejected the request to access to written pleadings and evidence filed by Erik Krahbichler and SWAT Medical AB More about the Erik Krahbichler and SWAT Medical / Meril matter can be read here on the EPLAW Patent Blog https://lnkd.in/ghwwe4NA

Hydrogels: a broader interpretation for medical use patent protection in Europe Dr. Heather West and Dr. Nicholas Watermeyer, patent attorneys at European intellectual property firm Withers & Rogers, both specialising in the firm's Life Sciences and Chemistry Group, discuss the growing opportunity to patent hydrogels.... https://lnkd.in/eSZjiAjV #BioTech #science

Selection of multiple alternatives from a single list is not sufficient to confer novelty to a so called "selection invention" filed before the EPO. The UPC departed from such view!! I wonder the impact this may have on users, with possible future consequences on such long-established EPO practice affecting both pre- and post- grant proceedings. https://lnkd.in/eNWc7xdM

#Get_your_Utility_Patent_Publish by joining IIISc ( Indian Institute of Innovation and Science). Our main target is to help our participants understand the concept of  "Utility Patents with your innovative mind". You can "Publish your Patent Fast in 3 months with International Scientists!" Splendid Benefits: Confirm Patent Idea, Drafting, preparation of form and filling process with filing certificate  After Confirmation Journal Link and Patent Certificate 2 Free International Conferences  2ISBN Chapter Publication Support  2 Free Patent Orientated Workshop and Certificates  One Symposium Certificate  One Free ISBN Book Publication and One Certificate   Campus Immersion available  Free National and International Seminar on invention, Patent Development and Publication  Note: Kindly find the attachments in the email about our Innovation  Course Fees is :(Rs29,000+ ₹ 5,220 GST or total is  ₹ 34,220 Payment link: https://lnkd.in/dTFdHEd7 #Kindly find the attachments for the recent patent by IIISc. Indian Institute of Innovation and Science (https://iiisc.org/) #WhatsApp Group at the following link to receive further information https://lnkd.in/dT63kFic #Admission link/ Any queries f\kindly refer the following link given: https://lnkd.in/dsaDSxWq