英国和欧洲专利律师 | 特许商标律师

保护创意和资产

法律服务

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）。

查看知识产权服务

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。

查看所有案例解析

toy robot in prison, with a gavel in the background

Is ChatGPT a skilled person? The EPO says no.

n today's world, artificial intelligence has become a part of many aspects of our daily lives. Unsurprisingly, AI is also making its way into the field of intellectual property law, as large language models are being used in proceedings before the EPO.

Mind the Gap (between Prior Agreements and New Trade Marks)

A recent UKIPO Decision, between Transport for London and high street fashion retailer, GAP, regarding the renowned London Underground catchphrase “MIND THE GAP” has highlighted the importance of ensuring that prior agreements are adhered to when filing new trade mark applications.

EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal Issues Much-Anticipated Decision in G 1/24

The question of whether and, if so, the extent to which the description and drawings should be used to interpret the claims of a European patent / European patent application has been a hotly contested topic in the world of IP for a considerable length of time. In its recent decision in G 1/24, the Enlarged Board of Appeal has finally settled the issue, holding that the description and drawings must always be used to interpret the claims. This decision thus brings EPO practice into line with the practice of the national courts of the EPC contracting states and the UPC.

US Federal Circuit Decision to Narrow the Scope of IPR Estoppel

US Federal Circuit confirm that IPR estoppel under Section 315(e)(2) “does not preclude a petitioner from relying on the same patents and printed publications as evidence in asserting a ground that could not be raised during the IPR, such as that the claimed invention was known or used by others”.

A Legal Framework for Considering Second Medical Use Claims at the UPC: Sanofi vs Regeneron

The jurisprudence of the United Patent Court (UPC) is relatively new and thus new aspects frequently arise. A decision of the Dusseldorf local division of the UPC may provide a framework for assessing infringement of second medical use claims, which might be persuasive to other UPC courts.

Safestand stands taller as Court of Appeal finds trestle designs valid

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Safestand Limited v Weston serves as a reminder of the importance of ensuring that representations provided as part of a design application are clear and consistent so as to ensure that upon an objective assessment, the representations are found to relate to a single product and not a collection of different embodiments.

UPC Case Law Update: Problem-Solving and Provisional Measures

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) continues to refine its procedural and substantive framework, with several recent decisions shaping the practical landscape for patent litigation in Europe. Below are two meaningful updates from recent UPC case law that are relevant for patentees and litigants.

Use Claims Can be Method Claims in Disguise, says the EPO

Strict rules of interpretation apply to the four categories of claim permitted by the EPO (product, method, apparatus, and use). It is usually clear from the claim wording which claim category is used to define an invention, however a recent decision from one Board of Appeal has confirmed that, in certain cases, claims initially appearing to be use claims are, in fact, to be interpreted as method claims.

在专利和商标法方面的卓越表现