by Sean Hutchinson | Jun 18, 2025 | EPO
Headnote Summary In case G 1/24, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (“EPO”) had been asked to answer the following questions: “Question 1 Is Article 69(1), second sentence, EPC and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69...
by Chloe Sullivan | Jun 17, 2025 | US & International
The Federal Circuit held that, although the defendant (Ingenico) had previously challenged IOENGINE’s patents in IPRs, they were not precluded from relying on product prior art and printed publications related thereto to prove the claimed invention was known or used...
by David Eyre | Jun 10, 2025 | UPC
The jurisprudence of the United Patent Court (UPC) is relatively new. Thus, a question of ongoing interest is to what extent the UPC will follow the jurisprudence of the European Patent Office (EPO) and/or one of the UPC member states was not fully known. The...
by Carolyn Haywood | Jun 3, 2025 | Designs & Copyright
Background The present decision stems from an appeal by Safestand against an order of the High Court declaring three of its UK registered designs (90002293490001 (“RRD 0001”), 90003121450004 (“RRD 0004”) and 90003121450005 (“RRD 0005”) (collectively, “the...
by Sean Hughes | May 28, 2025 | UPC
Munich Local Division Endorses EPO’s Problem-Solution Approach In Edwards Lifesciences vs Meril (UPC_CFI_501/2023), the Munich Local Division (LD) has affirmed the use of the problem-solution approach (PSA) for assessing inventive step. The PSA, a method long...
by Sean Hutchinson | May 20, 2025 | EPO
It is generally accepted in the world of IP that all inventions fall into one of four categories: products, methods, apparatuses (i.e. products for carrying out specific processes), and uses. Thus, when drafting a new patent application, an important first step is to...
Recent Comments