News
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eurasian Patent Office to increase official fees |
|
| |
|
The Eurasian Patent Office (EAPO) will implement the increased fees applicable for pending Eurasian patent applications with effect from 1 July 2022.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
Eurasia |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPO launches MyEPO Portfolio |
|
| |
|
On 1 June 2022, the European Patent Office (EPO) launched a new web-based online service called MyEPO Portfolio for its users.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
European Patent Organization |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EUIPO further extends time limit for Ukrainian users |
|
| |
|
The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has further extended the time limit exemption granted to Ukrainian users in IP-related proceedings.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
European Union, Ukraine |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taiwan inks IP deal with India |
|
| |
|
On 6 June 2022, Taiwan and India completed the exchange of diplomatic instruments under the Taiwan-India memorandum of understanding on Intellectual Property Rights.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
India, Taiwan |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USPTO reopens all office locations |
|
| |
|
On 25 May 2022, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that it has entered Phase 3 of its reopening plan.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USPTO issues memorandum on AAPAs |
|
| |
|
On 9 June 2022, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a memorandum to clarify its interpretation of Section 311(b) of Title 35 of the United States Code and how it will impact applicant-admitted prior art (AAPA) in inter partes reviews (IPRs).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Almost fifty years of creating a European patent court |
|
| |
|
The first attempts to create a European patent court date back as far as 1975, and the process to get the Unified Patent Court off the ground has been characterized by delays and setbacks. Still, 2022 seems to be the year that the UPC will finally see the light of day.
This is explained in an article by The European. ‘The current provisional application period is of enormous importance for the harmonization of European patent law. If everything goes according to plan, the UPC will be able to start in spring 2023.’
For more information (German language) please click here.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Unitary Patent News
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
European Union |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Language use at the UPC |
|
| |
|
Proceedings at the central division of the Unified Patent Court will be in the language in which the patent was granted.
This is explained in an article by EIP.
Proceedings at the local/regional divisions will be in either an official language of the member state in which the division is located, or in an official language of the EPO provided the member state has so designated, or in the language in which the patent was granted (on agreement by the parties).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Unified Patent Court News
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
European Union |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USPTO to end ISA/IPEA deal with Rospatent |
|
| |
|
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on 1 June 2022 informed the Russian Federal Service for Intellectual Property, Patents and Trademarks (Rospatent) that it will terminate their bilateral agreement under the Patent Cooperation Treaty.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
United States of America, Russian Federation |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USPTO launches Climate Change Mitigation Pilot Program |
|
| |
|
On 3 June 2022, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a notice in the Federal Register to implement the Climate Change Mitigation Pilot Program with immediate effect.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Czech Republic accedes to Geneva Act of Lisbon Agreement |
|
| |
|
On 2 June 2022, the Government of the Czech Republic acceded to the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications ("Geneva Act") by depositing its instrument of accession with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
Czech Republic |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Japanese IP Office joins Madrid e-Filing community |
|
| |
|
On 1 June 2022, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) launched Madrid e-Filing system for its national applicants who want to protect their marks abroad under the Madrid Protocol Concerning the International Registration of Marks, thus becoming the 17th intellectual property office to offer this facility.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
Japan |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kenya postpones recordals of IP rights for imports |
|
| |
|
On 24 May 2022, the Kenyan Anti-Counterfeit Authority issued an announcement that the deadline to commence recordals for imports in Kenya has been extended from 1 July 2022 to 1 January 2023.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
Kenya |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Madrid Protocol fees revised for San Marino |
|
| |
|
Under the provisions of the Common Regulations under the Madrid Agreement and Protocol Concerning the International Registration of Marks, the Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization on 22 June 2022 notified revised individual fees applicable when San Marino is designated in an international application or in an application for renewal of international registration or is a subject of subsequent designation.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
San Marino |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
Cases
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPO: Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd., European Patent Office (EPO), Board of Appeal, T 0288/19, 17 February 2022 |
|
| |
|
The business person sets the framework of the problem to be solved by their business model (insurance conditions) and thus reduces - by setting specific boundary conditions - the degrees of freedom of the skilled computer specialist. The technically skilled person, who has to solve the objective technical problem of implementation, therefore has no latitude in selecting the corresponding (physical) parameters.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Bart van Wezenbeek, Millipede |
|
| |
|
Source: Kluwer Patent Cases
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: Netherlands |
|
| |
|
European Patent Organization |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPO: Wolfspeed, Inc., European Patent Office (EPO), Board of Appeal, T 1869/18, 31 March 2022 |
|
| |
|
While objections raised by the Board for the first time in a communication under Article 15(1) RPBA 2020 may be considered to give rise to exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020, and may possibly justify the filing of amendments which specifically respond to the new objections, this does not open the door to additional amendments which are unrelated to the new objections, and for which no exceptional circumstances exist.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Bart van Wezenbeek, Millipede |
|
| |
|
Source: Kluwer Patent Cases
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: Netherlands |
|
| |
|
European Patent Organization |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPO: Koninklijke Philips N.V. vs. RauSearch Laboratories AB, European Patent Office (EPO), Board of Appeal, T 0960/15, 22 December 2021 |
|
| |
|
The EPO Boards of Appeal may review discretionary decisions. There are, however, limits on the extent of review that reflect the discretion accorded to the deciding body. In the present case, the board stated that it could only override the decision of the opposition division to admit D8 into the procedure if it had applied the wrong principles or exercised its discetion in an unreasonable way. The board did not find the admittance of D8 unreasonable, because D8 was considered relevant (at least for the novelty of one of the requests on file), which could be established by reading some parts of the extensive document (Article 12(2) RPBA 2020).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Bart van Wezenbeek, Millipede |
|
| |
|
Source: Kluwer Patent Cases
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: Netherlands |
|
| |
|
European Patent Organization |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPO: Grabovoi, G.P., European Patent Office (EPO), Board of Appeal, J 0014/21, 13 April 2022 |
|
| |
|
In proceedings relating to the timeliness of a request for restoration of right of priority, the (legal) board of appeal clarified a number of issues. First, it confirmed that the PCT Assembly may be considered the legislator for the PCT Regulations and that "understandings" of the PCT Assembly expressed in relation to a newly amended rule, together with the adoption of this rule, are an expression of the legislator's intention. The delegates of the PCT Contracting States in the PCT Assembly agreed, in the "understandings" relating to R. 49ter.2(b)(i) PCT, on how this rule should be applied. As an act of authentic interpretation by the legislator this agreement may be taken into account when assessing the context for the purpose of interpreting the new provision
In the case in hand, when applying R. 49ter.2(b)(i) PCT in the light of the understandings of the PCT Assembly, the request and the payment for restoration of the right of priority were made in time.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Bart van Wezenbeek, Millipede |
|
| |
|
Source: Kluwer Patent Cases
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: Netherlands |
|
| |
|
European Patent Organization |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPO: Wai-Lin, M., European Patent Office (EPO), Board of Appeal, T 1362/19, 31 March 2022 |
|
| |
|
If an abstract feature is not defined in more concrete terms either in the relevant claim or in the description of the application, it has to be understood in a broad sense. This may be important when assessing the implicit disclosure of a document of the state of the art. In particular, for this assessment it may be irrelevant whether there are several alternatives for implementing the abstract feature in concrete terms.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Bart van Wezenbeek, Millipede |
|
| |
|
Source: Kluwer Patent Cases
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: Netherlands |
|
| |
|
European Patent Organization |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spain: Judgment no. 46/2022 of the Supreme Court, dated 27 January 2022, Supreme Court of Spain, First Civil Law Chamber, 46/2022, 27 January 2022 |
|
| |
|
The Spanish Supreme Court rules in a patent ownership and trade secret dispute where a company had filed a patent application which named as inventor the husband of the company's founder, who had previously led an R&D project funded by a competitor. The Court sets a high standard for ownership claims and, at the same time, establishes a narrow and ambiguous threshold for unfair competition actions based on breach of trade secrets.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Adrian Crespo, Clifford Chance, Barcelona |
|
| |
|
Source: Kluwer Patent Cases
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: Spain |
|
| |
|
Spain |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp., United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 20-1259, 17 June 2022 |
|
| |
|
Obviousness determinations made by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) were vacated because the patent at issue expired during the pendency of the litigation and before the Board issued its final decision.
A PTAB decision that was rendered moot by the “vagaries of circumstance” prior to judgment being entered should have been vacated, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The patent at issue expired between the Federal Circuit’s remand to the Board and the Board issuing its final decision after remand (SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp., June 17, 2022, Chen, R.).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kevin M. Finson, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: University of Massachusetts v. L’Oréal S.A., United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No 21-1969, 13 June 2022 |
|
| |
|
The district court erred in its claim construction analysis and denying UMass jurisdictional discovery.
In an infringement case brought by the University of Massachusetts against cosmetics company L’Oréal involving skin treatment patents, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the federal district court in Delaware erred in its claim construction analysis and in denying jurisdictional discovery. The district court’s claim construction error required reversal of its holding that the patents are invalid based on indefiniteness. The Federal Circuit also found that the University of Massachusetts is entitled to jurisdictional discovery and that the district court incorrectly dismissed L’Oréal S.A., based in France, for lack of personal jurisdiction (University of Massachusetts v. L’Oréal S.A., June 13, 2022, Taranto, R.).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Brian Craig, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Baker v. Raimondo, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Nos. 2021-1961 & 2021-2116, 13 June 2022 |
|
| |
|
Federal district courts were without subject matter jurisdiction to review an inventor’s multitude of complaints about the patent process because the inventor failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
The federal district court in Alexandria, Virginia, properly found that an inventor’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies was fatal to judicial review of adverse decisions by the USPTO regarding four patent applications, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The inventor had not obtained final judgments from the Patent and Trial Appeal Board before filing suit against the Secretary of Commerce and others to alter the USPTO’s patent determinations (Baker v. Raimondo, June 13, 2022, per curiam).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kevin M. Finson, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2021-1070, 21 June 2022 |
|
| |
|
Because the patent failed to disclose the absence of a loading dose, the no-loading-dose limitation was without adequate written description support.
A divided Federal Circuit panel has reconsidered and reversed a prior decision finding that a patent owned by Novatis for administering a drug to treat relapse multiple sclerosis was not invalid for lack of written description support. Upon reconsideration of expert testimony and the prosecution history, the panel concluded that the district court’s finding that the no-loading-dose limitation met the written description requirement was clearly erroneous. The court granted a petition for rehearing filed by HEC Pharm Co., Ltd. and HEC Pharm USA Inc., vacated its prior decision, and reversed the district court’s judgment that the claims of patent at issue were not invalid (Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., June 21, 2022, Moore, K.).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Cheryl Beise, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 27 Jun 2022 |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
