专业服务
专利
专利体现了我们客户知识产权的一个关键方面。无论是用来保护核心技术、阻止竞争对手进入特定的技术和商业领域，还是作为通过许可或权利转让的收入来源，客户的专利可能具有重大的商业价值。施利希知道，专利的作用可能因客户业务的性质和生命阶段的不同而不同，因此我们力求提供量身定制的实用建议。
在起草专利申请时，我们力求以一种能够提供商业相关保护的方式来界定您的发明，提供灵活性来解决起诉期间出现的任何不可预见的异议，并最终提供宝贵的权利，如果需要，可以进行辩护和强制执行。
施利希律师采用创造性和实用性的方法进行申请，并通过与欧洲专利局和英国知识产权局审查员的直接互动取得了相当大的成功。我们还可以就加快起诉或推迟成本的有效策略提供建议，以适应您的商业需求。我们还能够直接通过欧洲和国际（PCT）专利系统或通过与值得信赖的外国律师事务所建立的关系，统筹协调全球范围内的专利起诉。
施利希专利团队在欧洲专利局的异议和上诉程序（包括诉讼和辩护）方面积累了相当丰富的经验，并有成功的战绩。我们还能够就潜在的自由使用权和侵权问题提供建议，并提出切实可行的解决方案。
近期案例解析
阅读来自施利希团队最近与专利相关的案例解析和专利法的最新动态
UPC Court of Appeal Suggests the Description is Relevant to Deciding Whether Certain Embodiments Are Excluded from the Scope of the Claims
The question of whether and to what extent the description should be used to interpret the claims of a patent is a disputed topic in patent law, with there being a need to construe the claims as they are written whilst also reading them in the context of the patent as a whole. In its first substantive decision, the UPC’s Court of Appeal suggests the description can be used to decide whether arguably impractical embodiments are excluded from the scope of the claims.
Updates to the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO – 2024
The Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office (EPO) “the Guidelines” act as an instruction manual with respect to the various aspects of the examination of European patent applications and patents before the EPO, that is they dictate the practice and procedure that should be followed under the European Patent Convention (EPC) and its Implementing Regulations “the Rules”. The Guidelines are updated on an annual basis and the latest edition, which supersedes the previous version, entered into force on 1 March 2024. Herein we provide a summary of those changes most likely to affect both clients and practitioners alike.
Up, down, discounted? EPO fees are changing
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.
UK Supreme Court confirms that AI cannot be named as an inventor on UK patent applications
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
Back in the Maze: Is the Decision of the Referring Board in G 2/21 About to be Overturned?
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.
Generic Drug Manufacturers Protected by the “Skinny Label” provisions of the Hatch–Waxman Act
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.
The Maze of Plausibility Case Law: The Referring Board in G 2/21 Suggests a Way Through
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.
联系我们
我们的英国和欧洲专利律师和特许商标律师团队具有丰富的知识和经验，能够协助客户满足其知识产权各个方面的法律需求。
立即联系我们，了解我们如何帮助您和您的企业的更多信息。
