A number of sources are reporting that Luxembourg has ratified the Unified Patent Court Agreement. The proceedings in the Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies can be seen here. Although Luxembourg has ratified the UPC Agreement it has not, as of 26 March 2015 and according to the official EU Council UPC page, deposited its instrument of ratification in Brussels (so no update to IPcopy’s Ratification Game post just yet!).
Luxembourg is the seventh country to ratify after Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Malta and Sweden. The ratification session in the Chamber of Deputies also apparently confirmed that Luxembourg does not intend to create a local division (or presumably take part in a regional division). Actions that could have been been otherwise brought in Luxembourg will have to go the central division (Paris, London or Munich) instead.
Mark Richardson 26 March 2015
The EPO’s Guidelines for Examination were updated in November last year. Section H-IV, 2.3 covers the general rules for assessing amendments for conformity with Article 123(2) EPC. Following general grumbles that the EPO was becoming a bit too strict when assessing whether amendments comprised added matter, section H-IV, 2.3 was updated to say that literal support is not required (based on T667/08) and that an added matter assessment which “disproportionally focusses on the structure of the claims” should be avoided (this position being taken from T2619/11).
However, a recent Board of Appeal decision, T1363/12, that was published shortly after the Exam Guidelines update, has reaffirmed the “gold standard” test in G2/10, has downplayed the significance of T2619/11 and has effectively suggested that the Guidelines do not accurately reflect the position in G2/10. (more…)
A week ago we noted that IPKat had received details of two proposals (2.5 proposals if you count the SME variant) that the EPO is seriously considering with respect to the renewal fees for the unitary patent.
After we got over the initial shock that some actual figures had been revealed (leaked?) we took a closer look and realised that what most of the commentary was missing on this news was some fancy-ass graphs. So here, for your viewing pleasure, are some fancy graphs*, some comments and an observation or two.
…. Did we mention there’s graphs?……. in colour? (more…)
An update on developments in the US was provided during the Finnegan “A Year in Review” seminar. Anthony Tridico noted that there are now “Three Kings” in the US: the Supreme Court of the United States, the Federal Circuit and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
Anthony noted that the PTAB has become the number 1 most active jurisdiction in the US after only two years of operation.
First up however was the Federal Circuit and a case relating to double patenting. (more…)
Topics discussed below include: some actual figures for the renewal fees for the unitary patent(!!), a clarification about the updated European Patent Litigators Certificate, an updated article from Dr Stjerna regarding the Spanish challenges and the CJEU and unitary patent news from Italy. (more…)
IPcopy was fortunate enough to attend Finnegan’s Year in Review seminar at the Old Hall in Lincoln’s Inn. An overview of decisions of the EPO Boards of Appeal from the last year or so was provided during the seminar. The cases covered related to Admissibility, Partial Priorities, Added Matter and a couple of other slightly unusual cases. (more…)
The AG’s opinion (English version) in C-146/13 relating to enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection can be found here.
The AG’s opinion (English version) in C-147/13 relating to enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements can be found here. (more…)
We’ve covered the patent case review from the above seminar in some detail but in among the main presentations were a few other points (relating to the unitary patent in Germany and the need to check the UK Patents Register when finding the current granted claims) that stood out and are probably not long enough in their own right for a full post. (more…)
On 13 February Keltie held its first workshop in our new location at London Bridge. The speaker at this event was Christopher Rennie-Smith who came to share his experience of 15 years as a member of the EPO Boards of Appeal, most recently as chairman of a Board of Appeal (biotechnology) and member of the Enlarged Board of Appeal.
Christopher’s brief was to provide an overview of the functioning of the EPO Boards of Appeal with insights on the process from a Board perspective. This excellent seminar covered areas such as common perceptions, delays, communications, evidence, late submissions, oral proceedings and beyond appeals. This post will generally follow the structure of the talk. Christopher highlighted at the outset that he would not be considering specific cases or the current “politics” surrounding the independence of the Boards of Appeal. (more…)