专利、商标和外观设计
我们帮助各种形式和规模的个人和企业
施利希是一个独特的欧洲专利和商标律师团队，总部位于英格兰南部。自2004年以来，我们帮助客户收购和保护他们的知识产权资产，帮助他们在知识产权资产的基础上建立和发展成功的企业。
我们起草和提交专利申请，使其获得批准并实施强制执行。我们还准备和提交商标申请，并为其注册进行起诉。
T为了执行客户的权利，我们还代表他们参加法院和其他各方之间的诉讼程序（必要时，提出异议和撤销竞争对手的权利）。
近期案例解析
阅读施利希团队关于涉及专利、商标和外观设计的近期真实案例解析和新闻动态。
Claim Interpretation and Other Lessons from Otec v. Steros at the UPC Court of Appeal
This UPC Court of Appeal’s decision in Otec v. Steros provides further guidance on how claims are to be interpreted at the UPC. The Court made it clear that experimental data produced after the filing of a patent application and not disclosed in a patent specification generally cannot be used to clarify the meaning of the claims and can only be relied upon in exceptional circumstances. The ruling underscores the importance of drafting claims and descriptions that are clear and complete from the outset.
Inventive Step Based on a “Black Box” Following G1/23
The EPO Technical Boards of Appeal (TBA) decision in T 1044/23 offers the first practical insight into how the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) decision in G 1/23 will shape novelty and inventive step assessments when the prior art consists of commercially available products whose manufacturing processes remain undisclosed, i.e. effectively an intellectual “black box.”
Which is More Important: Human Rights or Trade Marks? The CJEU Prepares to Decide!
The interplay between human rights and intellectual property, and the question of whether the exclusive rights conferred by registering IP can be used to restrict a third party’s right to freedom of expression, have been raised in several cases. In a recent opinion, the CJEU’s Advocate General has suggested there is a balance to be struck, rather than one right being more important than the other.
When AI is not enough: UKIPO and patentability of AI inventions
Technology with artificial intelligence has experienced an extraordinary boom in recent years. This is reflected in the increasing number of patent applications with inventions that integrate AI to their functionality. Interestingly, this has raised many legal questions regarding excluded subject matter, seeing that determining what constitutes a patentable AI invention has become an important point of debate in intellectual property law.
Claim Interpretation At The EPO: Clear Claim Language Might Not Mean What You Think It Does
Since the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal issued decision G1/24, it has become clear from the number of recent decisions of EPO Technical Boards of Appeal that the description is not, in practice, being used to narrow the interpretation of otherwise clear claim language. T1849/23 has become the first case where clear claim language is broadened by definitions and/or embodiments provided in the description.
Does UK Patent Law Need Updating to Account for AI? One Recent Decision of the UK High Court Suggests It Does!
A recent decision of the UK High Court in relation to another of Dr Thaler’s patent applications highlights some of the problems caused by using patent laws written in a time before AI to govern patent practice in the modern age.
The CJEU Considers Infringement of a LEGO Registered Design Right Through the Eyes of the “Informed User”
In Decision C-211/24 the CJEU have confirmed that the ‘informed user’ in the context of considering infringement of a registered design should be understood as someone who is particularly observant and knowledgeable, often due to personal experience or extensive knowledge of the sector.
Lynk Labs asks Supreme Court of the United States to define prior art in the context of inter partes review proceedings
With the America Invents Act, Congress introduced a new administrative procedure for challenging patents – inter partes review (IPR). Any person, except the Proprietor, can file a petition for review but only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” (35 U.S.C. § 311(b)). In a judgement handed down in January 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to hold several of Lynk Lab’s patent claims as obvious over a US patent application filed before, but published after, the priority date of Lynk Lab’s patent claims. Key to this finding was the Federal Circuit’s affirmation that patent applications may serve as prior art in IPR proceedings as of their filing date and fall within the ambit of the category printed publications. Now Lynk Labs has petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari asking “Whether patent applications that become publicly accessible only after the challenged patent’s critical date are “prior art *** printed publications” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 311(b)”. In Lynk Lab’s opinion, they are not.
在专利和商标法方面的卓越表现
施利希团队
由于施利希经验丰富的专业团队，我们的客户获得了超越期望值的迅速回馈，高质量和高价值的友好服务。我们的英国和欧洲专利律师以及特许商标律师，拥有英国顶尖大学的广泛科学和技术专业学位和博士学位，并在法律和商业问题及技术的最前沿拥有几十年的咨询经验。
我们在起诉和跨部门诉讼方面积累了深厚的经验，为客户的创新成果提供最佳的战略和实践建议，并确保最佳的专利和商标保护。我们的团队在更多高技能和经验丰富的法律支持人员团队的支持下，以友好和明确的方式高效地完成了每项诉讼事务。
最近公司动态
Simon Wright becomes CIPA President in 2026
We are delighted to announce that Schlich’s very own Simon Wright has begun his term as CIPA president, from 1 January 2026.
New Year Promotions at Schlich
We are delighted to announce that Juliette Boynton has been appointed a Director at Schlich and Sean Hughes has been promoted to Principal.
Schlich Named in Financial Times ‘Europe’s Leading Patent Law Firms’ for 2025
Schlich are proud to announce that we have been named one of ‘Europe’s Leading Patent Law Firms’ by the Financial Times. The list, compiled by peer and client recommendations, as well as statistical research, published a total of 215 firms offering patent attorney services in Europe.
