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
Your Court or Mine? UPC takes home advantage
Nokia filed two separate revocation actions challenging Mala’s EP 2 044 709 patent, valid only in Germany. The first was filed on 29 April 2021 in the German Federal Patent Court but was unsuccessful, as the patent was upheld (appeal pending). The second was filed on 15 December 2023 in the Unified Patent Court (UPC). This article focuses on Mala’s objection to the UPC's jurisdiction, in which they argued that since a revocation action was already ongoing in Germany, the UPC should reject Nokia’s action as inadmissible.
The Federal Circuit clarifies conflicts arising between Patent Term Adjustment and Obviousness-type Double Patenting
We perceive a sigh of relief from some patent holders following issue of the US Federal Circuit’s decision in Allergan USA v. MSN Labs, 24-1061 (Fed. Cir. August 13, 2014) (“Allergan”). This decision appears to forestall the revocation of some patents following the concerning precedential Federal Circuit decision In re Cellect (No. 22-1293) (“Cellect”).
Boards of Appeal Introduce New Broad Interpretation of “Substance or Composition” in the Context of Second Medical Use Claims
In this decision the Board has diverged from previous case law establishing that second medical use claims were restricted to products having a chemical mode of action and instead the Board ruled that “substance or composition” should stretch to any product which may be defined by its chemical composition, regardless of the mode of action.
First Revocation Decision of the UPC Confirms the European Approach to Antibody Inventions
This case represents the first revocation issued by the UPC and so gives several useful insights into the way in which the court will apply the law.
Food for fork: stretchy cheese and contradictory post-filed evidence
T 0629/22 considered how the credibility of a claimed invention should be addressed in the face of contradictory evidence
Therapeutic Effect – a Higher Bar for Novelty than for Sufficiency at the EPO
EPO medical use claims are interpreted to include the physiological or technical effect of the treatment as being a functional feature of the claim. However, this interpretation yields different bars for novelty and sufficiency, as confirmed by EPO TBA Decision T 0209/22.
New Hope for Antibody Claims in the US
However, in a significant development we now report, means-plus-function language for a claim to an antibody complied with both of the USPTO requirements for written description and for the claim not to be indefinite. Where functional language alone is used in US claims, such claims commonly attract written description and enablement objections. Enablement requires that […]
Clarity Once Again: The EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal Suggests the Current Test for Whether to Admit Post-Filed Evidence into Proceedings Should Stand
Following G 2/21, the referring board in the case underpinning that referral (T 116/18) established a test based on the principles set out by the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal for deciding whether to admit post-filed evidence into proceedings. The opponent then filed a petition for review of that decision, rendering it unclear whether the new test would be upheld or overturned. The Enlarged Board has now issued its preliminary opinion on that petition, which strongly suggests the test established by T 116/18 will be upheld and the petition dismissed.
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。
