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.
by Daniel X. Thomas
Dear readers,
It is already the second season greetings! Time has flown by.
Thanks for your interest in my blog!
I wish you, and all those dear to you, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Not too many problems, be it at home or at work.
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 improvements insecurity substrates for security documents.
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided that claim 1 as granted was lacking N over D1=WO2004/056582 not mentioned in the ISR established by the EPO.
The patent was maintained according to AR6.
Both the opponent and the proprietor appealed the OD’s decision.