by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to a “Tablet formulation of N-[2,4-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-5-hydroxyphenyl]-1,4-dihydro-4-oxoquinoline-3-carboxamide for use in the treatment of cystic fibrosis”.
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided maintenance according to AR 16 as the claims as granted and AR 1-15 where lacking sufficiency.
The opponent appealed the decision of the OD.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to a “flexible” electrical connector for connection to an electrical element on a substrate such as glazing in a vehicle.
Brief outline of the case
Opponent 1 appealed the decision of maintenance according to AR3.
The board decided to revoke the patent as the subject-matter of claim 1 as maintained and of AR1 was lacking IS over E1=DE 103 01 352 + D3=US 5,920,125.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The UCL Institute of Brand and Innovation Law chaired by Sir Robin Jacob organised a forum discussion on the topic: EPO and UPC: Friends or Foes?
The panel consisted of:
Dr Ingo Beckedorf (Chairman of Legal Board of Appeal, EPO)
Florence Butin (President of CFI of UPC)
Edward Oates (partner at Carpmaels and Ransford LLP)
Annsley Merelle Ward (partner at Wilmer Hale)
Chair: Professor Sir Robin Jacob (UCL Faculty of Laws and Director of the UCL Institute of Brand and Innovation Law)
I booked a ticket to follow the discussion on line.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to a dishwasher and especially to a door mechanism allowing the door leaf to extend in the vertical direction at the end of the opening process. This allows a better access to the inner volume of the dishwasher.
Brief outline of the case
The opposition was rejected and the opponent appealed.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent related to a cold/hot water supply apparatus
Brief outline of the case
The patent was revoked by the OD and the proprietor appealed.
The OD found that Art 100(c) prejudiced the maintenance of the patent as granted, that the subject-matter of claim 1 of any of AR 1 to 6 did not comply with Art 123(2),