PATENTS, TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS
WE HELP INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES OF ALL shapes and SIZES
Schlich is a unique team of European Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys based in the South of England. Since 2004, we’ve helped our clients acquire, and defend, their IP assets, helping them to build and grow successful businesses based on their IP assets.
We draft and file patent applications, get them granted and enforce them. We also prepare and file trade mark applications and prosecute them to registration.
To enforce our clients’ rights, we also represent them in court and other inter partes proceedings (and, where necessary, attack and remove competitors’ rights).
Read the latest news and briefings from the team at Schlich about real cases involving patents, trade marks and designs.
UK Patents Court Confirms the Importance of Knowing Who Owns What in Infringement Proceedings
In a recent decision of the Patents Court, the judge found that the person who started infringement proceedings was not, in fact, the proprietor of the patent and thus did not have any rights in the patent to enforce. Similarly, the judge held the defendant liable for infringement of the patent despite the defendant claiming to be the proprietor. This decision highlights the problems that can arise when ownership of intellectual property is unclear.
Today’s The Day – The UPC Has Opened!
After several years of delays, formalities, constitutional disputes, and doubts in the minds of many as to whether the European Union’s new Unified Patent Court would ever open for business, this new court has finally opened its doors and will start taking cases from today.
Not all epitopes are equal: patent rights in antibodies for challenging targets.
T0435/20 demonstrates the limit of obviousness of the “standard” procedure of generating antibodies for peptide epitopes. T0435/20 also serves to teach us that non-routine methods for generating antibodies for rare or “challenging” epitopes must be fully disclosed and apply to all of the antibodies that are claimed.
Lidl Wins High Court Dispute Against Tesco over Familiar Blue and Yellow Logo
Background Lidl have been operating in the UK since 1973, during which they have always used the familiar blue and yellow Lidl logo. Last year Lidl accused Tesco of infringement of their registered trade mark rights in relation to two versions of this logo: the well-known “Mark with Text” as well as a version without […]
EPO to End “10-Day Rule”
The EPO “10-day rule” has for a long time effectively acted as a grace period during which certain responses can be timely filed after the deadline calculated from the face of an official communication only. However, the EPO are abolishing the 10-day rule and for deadlines set after 1 November 2023 this effective extension will not apply. Therefore, it is important that applicants and their representatives, who commonly rely on the grace period offered by the 10-day rule, recognise and remember that this option will not be available to them after 1 November 2023.
DECISION IN THE EBA PLAUSIBILITY REFERRAL (G2/21)
In summary, in support of inventive step in a claim in a European patent: yes, post-filed evidence can be used; and yes, it can be used to prove a technical effect. But this is subject to a proviso that the technical effect to be proved can be derived from the application as filed and is directed at the same invention as disclosed in the application as filed.
Pitfalls of Changing Definitions from a Priority Application
T1303/18 – This case acts as a useful reminder that changing definitions of the invention or important features thereof, between the priority application and subsequent filing, can be dangerous, and care is needed.
Free speech prevails in Lite-Netics, LLC v. Nu Tsai Capital LLC, d/b/a Holiday Bright Lights
Lite-Netics, LLC ‘Lite-Netics’ and Nu Tsai Capital LLC, d/b/a Holiday Bright Lights ‘HBL’ sell string lights primarily for use in decorating buildings during the holiday season. Lite-Netics brought an infringement action against HBL before the District Court of Nebraska with respect to two US patents. It also sent notices to some of its customers, also customers of HBL, asserting infringement and its intent to enforce its rights. HBL filed counterclaims, including for state-law torts, and requested a temporary restraining order (TRO) and subsequent preliminary injunction to prevent Lite-Netics making accusations with respect to patent infringement. The District Court granted both the TRO and subsequent preliminary injunction but on appeal the Federal Circuit found that the District Court abused its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction because the bar to stopping free speech was clearly not met.
EXCELLENCE IN PATENT AND TRADE MARK LAW
The Schlich Team
Our clients expect and receive a responsive, friendly, high quality and great value service thanks to our experienced professionals. Our UK and European Patent Attorneys and Chartered Trade Mark Attorneys have a broad range of scientific and technical degrees and Ph.Ds from top UK Universities, and have decades of experience advising at cutting edge of legal and commercial issues and technologies.
We build on our deep experience of prosecution and inter partes proceedings to give the best strategic and practical advice, and to secure the best patent and trade mark protection for our clients’ innovations. Our team does this efficiently, and in a friendly and clear manner, supported by a wider team of highly skilled and experienced legal support staff.
Schlich celebrates the Coronation of King Charles III
Schlich held a Coronation party on Friday. Dressed in red, white and blue, we snacked on some treats and looked forward to a (hopefully) sunny long weekend to celebrate the upcoming Coronation of King Charles III.
Schlich is ready for the UPC, are you?
After many months of doubts and pushbacks, 1 June draws near and with it, dawns the start of the UPC.
Collaboration between PDT Solicitors and Schlich offers clients a strong choice of representation before the EU’s ground-breaking Unified Patent Court.
Notwithstanding Brexit and the UK’s withdrawal from the UPC, UK-based European patent attorneys, such as those at Schlich, will have the right to represent clients before the UPC. Therefore, it remains possible for clients to use a UK-based legal team for UPC infringement and revocation actions. Schlich and PDT have joined forces to provide clients with a strong choice of representation before the UPC, drawing on Schlich’s impressive expertise in substantive patent law and extensive experience handling contentious matters before the European Patent Office, and PDT’s wealth of experience handling litigation in the UK and a growing number of European jurisdictions.