Archive for the ‘Non-U.S. Practice’ Category

A Hidden Danger Under The EPC – The “Extension Trap”

Wednesday, March 14th, 2012

Provided to us by Dr. Stefan Danner of DHS Patentanwalts GmbH, find below the current issue of the biotech IP newsletter dealing with recent EPO case law on Article 123(2)(3) EPC.

Extension Trap

Biotech IP Newsletters

Tuesday, December 6th, 2011

Find below biotech IP newsletters recently provided by Dr. Stefan Danner.


One step ahead and one step backward for the EU patent

Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011

The following is a contribution from Camilla Rendal Nielsen of Zacco Denmark A/S

1.   The EU Competiveness Council have authorised “enhanced cooperation” in the area of unitary patent protection, and.

2.   The EU court now states that the proposed Patents Court is not compatible with the provisions of the EU Treaty.

The European Competiveness Council have given their final consent to create a unitary patent system under the so-called enhanced co-operation scheme. As we announced last month, a number of European countries have moved towards a unified patent under the EPO, without Spain and Italy, who were blocking the proposed language regime (English, French and German). The current presidency under Hungarian leadership is eager to move the process forward and to begin negotiations to get all member states involved. The proposed unitary patent or EU patent would be granted by the European Patent Office and be valid in all participating states without the need for further translation or registration in each country, thus reducing the costs of patenting in Europe dramatically.

The Council gave their consent, well aware that the European Court of Justice had just handed down an opinion stating that a European and Community Patent Court (the Patents Court) is not compatible with the provisions of the EU Treaty. (Press release available at the end of this post). The presidency and numerous legal experts maintain that the creation of a unitary patent and the creation of the Patents Court are two different issues, and we may see a unitary patent system in place well before the Patents Court is functional.


Canadian Ruling Supports “Antibody Exception”

Thursday, March 10th, 2011

In my recent post on the Centocor v. Abbott decision, I noted that the Fed. Cir. had at least preserved the “antibody exception,” which I define as permitting broad claims to structurally uncharacterized antibodies (monoclonal and polyclonal) if the structure of the antigen is known (and preferably is novel) and methods of preparing the antibodies are routine. This dicta has been recently “followed” by the Canadian Patent Appeal Board in an appeal involving Immunex.

Learn more here.