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
Change is Coming to Australia! Patent Term Extension to No Longer be Available for Formulations
A recent decision of the Australian Full Federal Court has caused a significant change in practice regarding patent term extension for pharmaceutical substances in Australia.
Seagen vs Daiichi Sankyo: A Warning Shot for Broad Biologic Platform Patents in the US
A recent decision from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Seagen vs Daiichi Sankyo has sent a clear and consequential message to applicants and patentees in biotechnology and life sciences. The ruling appears to raise the risk profile for broadly claimed biologic and platform patents in the United States, extending well beyond the antibody space.
UPC Takes EPO Approach when Assessing Patentability of Broad Antibody Claims in Amgen v Sanofi
Following in the EPO’s footsteps, the UPC Court of Appeal have taken a patentee friendly approach when assessing Amgen’s functionally defined antibody claims.
Claim Interpretation and Other Lessons from Otec v. Steros at the UPC Court of Appeal
This UPC Court of Appeal’s decision in Otec v. Steros provides further guidance on how claims are to be interpreted at the UPC. The Court made it clear that experimental data produced after the filing of a patent application and not disclosed in a patent specification generally cannot be used to clarify the meaning of the claims and can only be relied upon in exceptional circumstances. The ruling underscores the importance of drafting claims and descriptions that are clear and complete from the outset.
Inventive Step Based on a “Black Box” Following G1/23
The EPO Technical Boards of Appeal (TBA) decision in T 1044/23 offers the first practical insight into how the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) decision in G 1/23 will shape novelty and inventive step assessments when the prior art consists of commercially available products whose manufacturing processes remain undisclosed, i.e. effectively an intellectual “black box.”
When AI is not enough: UKIPO and patentability of AI inventions
Technology with artificial intelligence has experienced an extraordinary boom in recent years. This is reflected in the increasing number of patent applications with inventions that integrate AI to their functionality. Interestingly, this has raised many legal questions regarding excluded subject matter, seeing that determining what constitutes a patentable AI invention has become an important point of debate in intellectual property law.
Claim Interpretation At The EPO: Clear Claim Language Might Not Mean What You Think It Does
Since the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal issued decision G1/24, it has become clear from the number of recent decisions of EPO Technical Boards of Appeal that the description is not, in practice, being used to narrow the interpretation of otherwise clear claim language. T1849/23 has become the first case where clear claim language is broadened by definitions and/or embodiments provided in the description.
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.
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。
