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
Equivalence Explained – The Court of Appeal Provides Guidance on How to Correctly Apply the Actavis Test
In the case of Salts v Pelican, the UK Court of Appeal has provided helpful guidance on how to correctly apply the Actavis test when considering infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. This case appears to establish an important precedent for the application of this test to other cases in the future.
Teva v Eli Lilly: a different route for antibody genus claims?
Broad antibody claims have faced a difficult path in the US since Amgen v Sanofi, particularly where the claim covers a large functional genus. The Federal Circuit’s decision in Teva v Eli Lilly is therefore interesting because the court drew an important distinction: claims to antibodies themselves are not necessarily treated the same way as claims to methods of treatment using a known class of antibodies.
G 1/26: The EPO’s Unfinished Business on Claim Interpretation
Following G 1/24, which held that the description must always be consulted when interpreting claims for patentability, a new referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - G 1/26 - asks whether that same approach applies more broadly, including to added matter, and whether the description can go beyond merely explaining claim terms to actually influence their meaning.
From EPO to UPC: The Lasting Impact of Prosecution on Claim Interpretation
The UPC continues to develop its approach to claim interpretation, particularly regarding the role of Patentee’s statements made during prosecution. A recent decision from the Milan Local Division in Agathon v. Intercom and Knarr offers insight into how the UPC treats such statements when construing patent claims.
First UPC Referral to the CJEU: Just How Long is the Long-Arm Jurisdiction of the UPC?
In its first ever referral to the CJEU, the UPC seeks clarification over its jurisdiction to decide on infringement of European patents in EU Member States that chose not to sign up to the UPC Agreement.
Claim interpretation at the EPO: Another Decision uses the description to broaden the claim scope
In this case, the Board of Appeal (BOA) considered the description to have a significant influence on claim interpretation, with the potential to both narrow and broaden the scope of the claims. This raises important questions on how description amendments may negatively affect claim interpretation post grant.
A Helping Hand: The USPTO Takes the Side of American Manufacturing
USPTO Director John Squires has recently introduced changes to the tests for institution of post-grant review and inter partes review by the USPTO’s PTAB.
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。
