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
Acceleration of EPO Oppositions – note the recent change in practice!
Oppositions (and then appeals of the opposition decisions) are a mainstay of the work of the EPO, allowing third party scrutiny of granted patents prior, and often in place of, litigation. The process can also be a safe means of testing the litigation water as, with only a few exceptions, no estoppel is generated through these EPO proceedings.
Reaping What You Sow – Insights into Employee Compensation Actions at the UK Patents Court
Background Under UK law, if an invention is devised by a person who is an employee of another party, and that other party owns the invention by virtue of being that person’s employer then, if a patent is granted for the invention and either the invention or the patent turns out to be of outstanding […]
Federal Circuit leans on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Amgen v. Sanofi to find Baxalta’s functionally defined antibody claims invalid for lack of enablement.
Just a few months ago, the US Supreme Court handed down its decision in Amgen v Sanofi (Amgen), namely that Amgen’s patents broadly claiming antibodies that inhibit the PCSK9 protein are invalid for lack of enablement. Now, in a decision that broadly mirrors Amgen, the Federal Circuit have found Baxalta’s functionally defined antibody claims insufficient.
Claim interpretation – how can “bigger” be the same as “not bigger?”
Notwithstanding the doctrine of equivalents now used to interpret claim scope, the principle of purposive construction is still used to interpret specific terms in a patent claim. In this case this yielded the result that “bigger” could be the same as “not bigger”.
Can a Decision on Re-establishment be Challenged during Opposition?
A recent Decision, T1482/21, from the Board of Appeal of the EPO considered whether a decision to re-establish a patent application can be challenged during Opposition proceedings at the EPO.
The UPC have been Quick to Issue their First Preliminary Injunction
One of the first preliminary injunctions was issued by the Unified Patent Court on 22 June 2023. The decision was made ex parte and, remarkably, on the same day as the application for an injunction was filed by the proprietor, despite the respondent’s efforts to avoid the issue of an injunction by filing a protective letter.
EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal set to consider in G 1/23 the degree to which enablement impacts the status of a commercially available product as state of the art
Central to the assessment of patentability at the EPO is the definition of ‘state of the art’. Article 54(2) EPC defines the state of the art as ‘everything made available to the public’ before the effective filing date of a patent application. But when the thing made available to the public is a product with a defined chemical composition, how much of that composition is made available to the public by the simple disclosure of the product? G 1/92 provided an answer but as the current referral to the EPO’s EBA shows, there are gaps that need filing.
Applying G 2/21 – Referring Board Suggests the Route Forward is Unclear
Following the Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G 2/21 (“plausibility”) earlier this year, the referring Board has issued its preliminary opinion on how to take EPO appeal no. T 116/18 forwards. It is clear the Board is uncertain how G 2/21 is to be applied, noting several interpretations of that decision seem feasible. Thus, new case law appears to be needed to help those using the European patent system understand the circumstances under which post-filed data can be relied upon by a patent proprietor in the assessment of inventive step.
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。
