Search results for

In two recent decisions of the Technical Boards of Appeal of the EPO, the recording of the transfer of a European patent played an important role in the admissibility of the appeal. Indeed, these decisions show the significance of accurately recording a transfer in the European Register and elucidate the requirements for validly doing so.

Under the amendment made to Articles 168 and 170 of the Health Supplies Regulation, which omitted the requirement that pharmaceutical companies must maintain a manufacturing plant in Mexico, the Mexican government granted the first marketing authorisation through the Health Ministry (The Federal Commission for Protection against Sanitary Risk COFEPRIS) to international foreign manufactures (Takeda International Company Limited and Amgen).

When Israel drug makers Unipharm and Trima started manufacturing generic versions of SmithKline Beecham's drug Avandia, SKB filed for an injunction and damages. Unipharm and Trima claimed that the patent (IL 106904) was invalid in light of a European patent previously filed by SKB that was published before the priority date.

In a recent case, the Court of Appeals in Thessaloniki considered whether there is a likelihood of confusion between an earlier CTM that covers goods of classes 11 (illuminating devices), 20 (children's furniture) and 25 (clothing) (figure 1) and a subsequent mark used to designate prams, bicycles for children and related goods (falling within class 12) (figure 2).

According to both the German Patent Act and the EPC, methods for treatment of the human body by surgery or therapy are excluded from patentability. While the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) of the EPO has already provided some guidelines (in G1/07), the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) had to wait some time for an opportunity to comment on this topic(BGH, X ZB 9/09).

Earlier articles showed how The Wayback Machine (www.archive.org) may be used to establish a date of public availability for a particular internet page, which may be usable in legal proceedings. However, certain pitfalls exist and need to be avoided in order for the evidence to withstand the scrutiny of the court or of the other party.

The EPO's statistics report an all-time filing high with some 234,000 new European patent applications filed in 2010. According to the EPO's website, this increase is partly a result of the economic recovery and partly a side-effect of "the EPO's introduction of new regulations which led applicants to file certain applications before the end of 2010". It is assumed that the latter comment hints at the new 24-months time limit under Rule 36(1) EPC and the associated transitional provision.

Since December 1 2003, the Benelux countries have opened up the spare parts market by introducing the so-called repair clause into the Benelux legislation on designs. This exception excludes from protection the design of component parts used for the purpose of repairing a complex product so as to restore its original appearance (must-match parts). It aims to increase competition, in particular in the automotive sector, to knock down the prices and offer consumers greater choice as to the source of spare parts used for repair purposes. Needless to say the car manufacturing industry is strongly against the liberalisation of the secondary market of spare parts, especially for financial, social and safety reasons.

An interesting decision of the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof (OGH)) can be reported. It applies the decisions of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in case C-532/06 02 Holdings Limited and C-487/07 L'Oreal to a specific case in Austria.

The new Australian Designs Act of 2004 was introduced partially to overcome the syndrome of every design being valid, but no design being infringed by a copier who had made small differences. However, a recent decision under the new Act highlights the difficulty in suing the wily copier who makes changes to the design.