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
When it comes to Post Filed Data, the Earlier the Better – A Brief Reminder Following G 2/21
This recent decision of the EPO Boards of Appeal, T 1865/22, reminds applicants to include clear details of the claimed technical effect in the application as filed and to file evidence in support of said technical effect as early as possible
UPC Patent Enforcement in the Post-Brexit Era
Has the UPC overreached its jurisdiction in this latest ruling?
Laos to become additional EPO validation state
Laos will join the five existing validation states (Morocco, Republic of Moldova, Tunisia, Cambodia, and Georgia) and the one extension state (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in which patent rights can be obtained based on a granted European patent. This means that, from April 2025, a European patent application can result in granted patents in up to […]
G1/24 versus UPC; Will there be a tug of war over claim interpretation?
Patent claim scope is not necessarily uniform between jurisdictions. However, one might expect the EPO, which grants European Patents, and the UPC, where European Patents are enforced, to have the same view of claim interpretation. However, this might not be the case.
UK High Court Confirms Requests for Arrow Declarations Based on Insufficient Disclosure Miss the Mark
The UK High Court recently refused to grant a request for an Arrow declaration based on a patent lacking sufficient disclosure. This decision indicates that Arrow declarations are to be granted in respect of specific products and processes only, not to declare that a patent application can never lead to grant of a valid patent. The decision also highlights the importance of novelty and inventive step when deciding whether to grant an Arrow declaration, and that sufficiency of disclosure is not relevant to this decision.
Is an Intervener an Opponent or Appellant, or just an Intervener?
A new referral has been made to the Enlarged Board of Appeal relating to the question of whether an appeal can continue with an intervener only, if the appellant has withdrawn.
UniQure’s Haemophilia B gene-therapy patent found valid – and infringed by Pfizer
The range of gene-therapies available to patients is ever expanding and it was only a matter of time before a conflict arose that had to be considered by the UK patent courts. Now uniQure has defended its patent for a Haemophilia B gene therapy against a revocation action brought by Pfizer.
Tales of Equivalence in the USA
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit has confirmed it is insufficient to allege two features are equivalent for a finding of equivalence to be reached. Instead, the party alleging equivalence needs to show how the variant achieves substantially the same result, in substantially the same way, as the corresponding feature of the claim.
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。
