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

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.

An Appellant is an appellant, and an intervener in an appeal is an intervener – G2/24

Following our earlier article, the Enlarged Board has now provided its Decision in this matter,

Ex Parte Re-Examination at the USPTO

In the United States, third parties have very limited opportunities to influence patent prosecution, and the main post-grant challenge routes (inter partes review (IPR) and litigation) are notoriously costly and time-consuming. Ex parte re-examination offers a practical, lower-cost alternative by allowing any party to submit prior art that prompts the USPTO to reassess an issued patent’s validity.

G 1/23 confirms that products placed on the market before the effective date of a European patent application constitute prior art, regardless of whether they can be reproduced

On 2 July 2025, the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) issued its decision in G 1/23. The referral stemmed from T 0438/19, an appeal against the decision of an opposition division to reject an opposition against a European patent directed to a material for encapsulating a solar cell which comprises an ethylene/alpha-olefin copolymer with certain defined properties, including a content of aluminium element of from 10 to 500ppm. D1 disclosed a commercially available copolymer, ENGAGE® 8400, which the opponent/appellant sought to rely on as the closest prior art for their inventive step challenge; however, the Patentee argued, with reference to G 1/92, that ENGAGE® 8400 cannot be reproduced (i.e., it is not enabled) and therefore it has not been made available to the public within the meaning of Article 54(2) EPC and thus is not a suitable starting point for the assessment of inventive step. Grappling with how to interpret G 1/92, the Board in T 0438/19 referred three questions to the EBA focused on understanding whether a commercial product, put on the market before the filing date of a European patent application, can be excluded from the state of the art for the sole reason that it could not be reproduced. The EBA has now answered, and the short answer is no!

Going it Alone: The EPO Chooses a Different Path to Claim Interpretation to the Courts

Many of us thought G 1/24 would convince the EPO to change its approach to claim interpretation, however a few recent decisions of the EPO’s Boards of Appeal and at least one commentary regarding the EPO’s official guidance to its examiners suggest the EPO’s practice of interpreting the claims in isolation may be here to stay. The EPO thus appears to be taking a different approach to claim interpretation to the national courts and the UPC, despite the Enlarged Board of Appeal stating in G 1/24 that it considered such an idea “a most unattractive proposition”.

Cancelled claims can come back to haunt you: Lessons from Colibri v. Medtronic

Patent infringement in the United States continues to evolve, particularly in how prosecution history impacts the interpretation of patent claims during the Infringement proceedings. A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Colibri v. Medtronic offers a compelling example of this trend, illustrating how choices made during patent prosecution can later affect enforceable rights.

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。

更多关于我们团队的信息