by Daniel X. Thomas
Dear Mr Tillmann,
This post is a reply to the allegations you have made in GRUR Int 2024, 769.
In this article you have criticised Nicolas Binctin (Professor in Poitiers, France) and Craig A. Nard (Professor in Cleveland, USA) for their conclusion that the conditions of entry into force of the UPCA as set out in its Art.
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 313 452 B1 relates to the preparation of an injectable cross-linked hydrogel
Brief outline of the case
The opposition was rejected and both opponents appealed.
None of the requests on file, as granted and AR1, were allowable due to lack of IS over D9=WO 2005/085329 as CPA.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to a mRNA/anti-PD-1 combination vaccine comprising an isolated mRNA comprising an open reading frame coding for an antigen and an antagonistic antibody directed against PD-1.
Brief outline of the case
The OD found that a new MR filed during opposition was lacking N over D1 prior art under Art 54(3).
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to immune molecules expressed in cancer tissue, and more particularly to evaluating the expression of immune molecules in tumour cells and tumour-infiltrating leukocytes, and especially B7-H1 AND PD-1 in treatment of renal carcinoma.
Brief outline of the case
The OD found that the priority of P1 was not validly claimed and D16,
by Daniel X. Thomas
I have no problems whatsoever if people publish comments using a pseudo. This is quite normal and as such not objectionable in the slightest.
However, considering the association of two pseudos as a breach of confidentiality, as it happened on this blog cannot be taken seriously. No person is endangered in any way.