The EPO has recently announced a revised fee structure for the next two years, including new fee reductions for micro-enterprises and the reduction of some fees, as well as some increases elsewhere. At Schlich we are ready to guide you through these changes and advise whether you may benefit from paying upcoming fees before/after implementation of the new fee structure.
As part of a long, ongoing legal battle across the globe, a further blow has been delivered by the UK Supreme Court to those who believe in the correctness of naming AI systems as inventors on patent applications for AI-devised inventors. The Supreme Court has upheld the earlier decisions of the UKIPO, High Court and Court of Appeal to refuse patent applications made by Dr Thaler for inventions claimed to have been devised by the AI system, DABUS
When the referring board’s written decision was issued in the case underpinning the “plausibility” referral (G 2/21) late last year, it provided much-needed certainty about how the EPO would apply G 2/21 in the future. However, that certainty has been short-lived because the opponent in that case has filed a petition for review of the decision by the Enlarged Board of Appeal.
The US Federal Circuit has given a decision that blocks a potential form of “evergreening” that pharmaceutical companies might have used to prevent launch of generic versions of their drugs through asserting later-filed method-of-use patents for the drug.
Logos, company or product names come to mind when it comes to the term “trade mark”. Unbeknownst to the general public, trade mark registrations can also be obtained to protect a shape or colour. In fact, some have even attempted to register a mark for smells, sounds or even, human faces. This begs the question, is it possible to trade mark a person’s face? A recent decision from the EUIPO Board of Appeal (BoA) sheds a glimmer of hope for those up for a challenge.
When the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal issued its decision in G 2/21 (the “plausibility” referral) earlier this year, many were left wondering what the requirements were for a patent applicant/proprietor to be able to rely on post-filed evidence in support of inventive step. The referring board in the case underpinning the referral (T 116/18) has recently issued a decision setting out its interpretation of G 2/21 in detail, offering new insight into how the EPO is likely to apply this important decision in the future.
The EPO Examining Division are Criticized by the Boards of Appeal for Breaking the Rules of Procedure
The Board have remitted this recently refused case to the Examining Division who have been criticized for committing several substantial procedural violations, including depriving an applicant of their all-important right to oral proceedings.
After trying to register his name as an EU trade mark, the IP company responsible for Lewis Hamilton’s IP has been told by the EUIPO that they have not sufficiently demonstrated his fame across the European Union to be able to rely on the “special protection” normally afforded to famous persons wishing to register their names as EU trade marks. This decision highlights the difficulties associated with registering personal names as trade marks, even when that name is very well-known.
Working in kilometres (we are, after all, European Patent Attorneys), we have managed to walk approximately 530km and are officially more than halfway to Munich! If we were to physically walk to...
After the New Year’s confetti has been swept away, the biscuit selection boxes are demolished and everyone has settled back into the nine to five, it’s likely that some of our New Years resolutions may have already taken a backseat.
We are thrilled to announce that Schlich has again been recommended as a leading patent firm in the 2024 Juve rankings.