Remove how-to-patent-in-europe-epo
article thumbnail

How the UPC and European Patents with Unitary Effect Reach Beyond Europe to the United States

IP Watchdog

The impact of the long-awaited launch of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) is hard to overstate. While litigators and patent portfolio managers are immediately feeling the impact in Europe, surprisingly, they should also expect an impact on information disclosure statement (IDS) strategy for U.S. patent applications.

article thumbnail

Building High-Quality Patent Portfolios in the United States and Europe: Part II – Software Patents

IP Watchdog

In Part I of this series, we discussed how patent portfolio managers should be careful when generating company-owned prior art or reviewing competitor prior art, and how a patent litigation or licensing campaign can be significantly hamstrung based on how the United States and Europe consider intervening prior art.

Patent 96
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Can amending the description to summarize the prior art add matter to the patent application as filed? (T 0471/20)

The IPKat

The EPO Guidelines for Examination require the description of a patent application to summarise the background art ( F-II-4.3 ). It is hard to see how the addition of a simple summary of the prior art could be detrimental to the patentee. The patent as granted ( EP2657138 ) related to a food product handling system (e.g.

Art 113
article thumbnail

Principals Moritz Ammelburg and Peter Fasse Author Managing IP Article “Coordinating Patent Prosecution in the U.S. and Europe”

Fish & Richardson Trademark & Copyright Thoughts

Moritz Ammelburg and Peter Fasse examine the patentability requirements and prosecution schemes in the US and Europe and how applicants can prepare applications that will best serve their needs in both jurisdictions. can significantly complicate the coordination of a global patent strategy. Inventorship.

article thumbnail

The IPKat EPO Boards of Appeal (BA) Year in Review 2021

The IPKat

Following on from our IPKat EBA 2021 Year in Review , here is some more festive holiday reading on some of the important decisions to come out of the EPO Boards of Appeal this year. As the year draws to the close, the EPO has announced the Legal Boards of Appeal decision on whether an AI can be named as an inventor (J 8/20 and J 9/20).

Inventor 123
article thumbnail

‘Plausibility’ and Admissibility of Post-Published Data in India

SpicyIP

In May 2023, the UK Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Apaxiban patent for lacking “plausibility” But how does this finding interact with the position of relevant laws in India? Amit is a registered Patent Agent and is currently part of IP litigation team at Sun Pharmaceuticals.

article thumbnail

Unambiguous disclosure without patent profanity (T 2171/21)

The IPKat

US patent attorneys wishing to understand certain peculiarities of European patent drafting need look no further than the recent Board of Appeal decision in T 2171/21. This case is a textbook example of the EPO's strict approach to added matter. Profanity The patent was opposed for added matter.

Patent 109