EP 3 455 066 B1 relates to a a method and an apparatus for producing multilayer films.
Brief outline of the case
The patent was revoked by the OD.
The MR filed during OP before the OD comprised added matter, cf. Art 123(2).
Updates on EPC, PCT, EPO case law and the e-EQE
Order of the CFI-UPC, LD The Hague, on simultaneous interpretation between Polish and English
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 1 993 350 B1 relates to gene modified brown mushrooms for commercial production. Specific strains were deposited under various ATCC Accession Numbers.
Brief outline of the case
Following opposition before the EPO by two companies, the patent was maintained in amended form. The OD’s decision was not appealed.
T 391/23 – What does an umbrella have in common with a fingerprint sensor?
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 701 420 B1 relates to a compact optical sensor, such as a fingerprint detector. The sensor is placed under a display panel for detecting and imaging light returned from a fingerprint on top of the display panel.
Existing solutions use absorbing channels as collimators to lead the light to the pixels below the display have the downside of also absorbing desired light.
T 815/22 – Replacing mother milk by an infant formula is not a method of treatment under Art 53(c)
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 361 885 B1 relates to nutrition for infants, in particular infant formula, intended to be used as a sole source of nutrition. In other words, it replaces mother milk.
Brief outline of the case
The opposition was rejected and both opponents appealed.
The OD considered that the claims at stake where related to a medical use and were purpose limited claims under Art 54(5) used in a method of according to Art 53(c).
Is the UPC competent to decide a PI to be applicable in signatory states which have not ratified the UPCA?
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 2 713 879 B1 relates to a continuous glucose monitoring system.
Brief outline of the case
The proprietor Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. has requested a PI at The Hague LD of the UPC against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V as it considered the patent infringed by Sibio/Umedwings.