化工与制药
发明创造
法律文件归档
我们起草并提交新化工发明的专利申请，范围从药品，化妆品到食品。我们的客户范围从中小型企业到大型跨国公司。由于我们的工作范围广泛，无论案例大小，我们都能够根据客户的需求定制服务。
诉讼
我们在专利诉讼方面拥有丰富的经验。不仅在英国和欧洲，而且在美洲，亚洲以及其他的国家和地区，施利希在当地司法管辖区值得信赖的专利律师的协助下，也处理了大量的专利产权案例。对多个司法管辖区的专利法的详细了解，有助于施利希协助客户有效地准备和执行全球专利诉讼战略。
化工与制药
异议与上诉
诉讼工作
无论是对专利侵权或专利维权的案例，施利希的异议和上诉团队在诉讼事务中都很积极活跃。我们团队在处理欧洲专利局的多方异议和上诉方面有几十年的经验。施利希在有利的情况下与其他异议方合作，并在诉讼程序的书面和口头部分有效地提出论据。
自由使用权
除了保护客户的专利外，我们还定期就第三方专利权引起的侵权风险提供建议。我们能够对可能与客户的商业活动相关的第三方专利权进行检索，并就我们识别的任何侵权风险以及为降低这些风险可以采取的措施提出相应的建议。
近期案例解析
阅读施利希团队撰写的化工与制药行业相关的最新案例解析。
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.”
Lynk Labs asks Supreme Court of the United States to define prior art in the context of inter partes review proceedings
With the America Invents Act, Congress introduced a new administrative procedure for challenging patents – inter partes review (IPR). Any person, except the Proprietor, can file a petition for review but only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” (35 U.S.C. § 311(b)). In a judgement handed down in January 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to hold several of Lynk Lab’s patent claims as obvious over a US patent application filed before, but published after, the priority date of Lynk Lab’s patent claims. Key to this finding was the Federal Circuit’s affirmation that patent applications may serve as prior art in IPR proceedings as of their filing date and fall within the ambit of the category printed publications. Now Lynk Labs has petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari asking “Whether patent applications that become publicly accessible only after the challenged patent’s critical date are “prior art *** printed publications” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 311(b)”. In Lynk Lab’s opinion, they are not.
An Appellant is an appellant, and an intervener in an appeal is an intervener – G2/24
Following our earlier article, the Enlarged Board has now provided its Decision in this matter,
G 1/23 confirms that products placed on the market before the effective date of a European patent application constitute prior art, regardless of whether they can be reproduced
On 2 July 2025, the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) issued its decision in G 1/23. The referral stemmed from T 0438/19, an appeal against the decision of an opposition division to reject an opposition against a European patent directed to a material for encapsulating a solar cell which comprises an ethylene/alpha-olefin copolymer with certain defined properties, including a content of aluminium element of from 10 to 500ppm. D1 disclosed a commercially available copolymer, ENGAGE® 8400, which the opponent/appellant sought to rely on as the closest prior art for their inventive step challenge; however, the Patentee argued, with reference to G 1/92, that ENGAGE® 8400 cannot be reproduced (i.e., it is not enabled) and therefore it has not been made available to the public within the meaning of Article 54(2) EPC and thus is not a suitable starting point for the assessment of inventive step. Grappling with how to interpret G 1/92, the Board in T 0438/19 referred three questions to the EBA focused on understanding whether a commercial product, put on the market before the filing date of a European patent application, can be excluded from the state of the art for the sole reason that it could not be reproduced. The EBA has now answered, and the short answer is no!
A Legal Framework for Considering Second Medical Use Claims at the UPC: Sanofi vs Regeneron
The jurisprudence of the United Patent Court (UPC) is relatively new and thus new aspects frequently arise. A decision of the Dusseldorf local division of the UPC may provide a framework for assessing infringement of second medical use claims, which might be persuasive to other UPC courts.
Landmark CJEU judgement opens up new avenues for European patent litigation
In a recent landmark judgement, the CJEU confirmed the possibility of European patent holders being able to consolidate actions for patent infringement across multiple EU and non-EU member states at a single EU court. For patent holders looking to assert their IP in an efficient, and likely more cost-effective and harmonious manner, the implications of the CJEU decision on enforcement strategies before both national courts and the UPC are noteworthy.
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
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。
