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。
Back in the Maze: Is the Decision of the Referring Board in G 2/21 About to be Overturned?
When the referring board’s written decision was issued in the case underpinning the “plausibility” referral (G 2/21) late last year, it provided much-needed certainty about how the EPO would apply G 2/21 in the future. However, that certainty has been short-lived because the opponent in that case has filed a petition for review of the decision by the Enlarged Board of Appeal.
Generic Drug Manufacturers Protected by the “Skinny Label” provisions of the Hatch–Waxman Act
The US Federal Circuit has given a decision that blocks a potential form of “evergreening” that pharmaceutical companies might have used to prevent launch of generic versions of their drugs through asserting later-filed method-of-use patents for the drug.
The Maze of Plausibility Case Law: The Referring Board in G 2/21 Suggests a Way Through
When the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal issued its decision in G 2/21 (the “plausibility” referral) earlier this year, many were left wondering what the requirements were for a patent applicant/proprietor to be able to rely on post-filed evidence in support of inventive step. The referring board in the case underpinning the referral (T 116/18) has recently issued a decision setting out its interpretation of G 2/21 in detail, offering new insight into how the EPO is likely to apply this important decision in the future.
EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal set to consider in G 1/23 the degree to which enablement impacts the status of a commercially available product as state of the art
Central to the assessment of patentability at the EPO is the definition of ‘state of the art’. Article 54(2) EPC defines the state of the art as ‘everything made available to the public’ before the effective filing date of a patent application. But when the thing made available to the public is a product with a defined chemical composition, how much of that composition is made available to the public by the simple disclosure of the product? G 1/92 provided an answer but as the current referral to the EPO’s EBA shows, there are gaps that need filing.
Not all epitopes are equal: patent rights in antibodies for challenging targets.
T0435/20 demonstrates the limit of obviousness of the “standard” procedure of generating antibodies for peptide epitopes. T0435/20 also serves to teach us that non-routine methods for generating antibodies for rare or “challenging” epitopes must be fully disclosed and apply to all of the antibodies that are claimed.
The UKIPO confirms that an SPC is for the product in the marketing authorisation on which it is based and not further uses for the product
It is well known that a pharmaceutical product can find alternative uses than the application for which it was originally developed. Furthermore, further patents can be granted to additional usage and dosage regimes for such pharmaceutical products. The question considered by the Hearing Officer in this case was whether a marketing authorisation for a single active compound (safinamide) was also sufficient to support a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) application for the use of safinamide in combination with levodopa/PDI for the treatment for Parkinson’s disease.
Plausibility of Melatonin Treating Non-Restorative Sleep
The Court of Appeal has issued a decision in the case of Neurim and Flynn v Mylan [2022] EWCA Civ 699 finding that the plausibility of a therapeutic effect for treating a particular form of insomnia has been demonstrated using subjective data obtained by questioning the users of the pharmaceutical product.
New SPC Referral to CJEU
There has been a new referral to the CJEU from the Supreme Court of Ireland on the interpretation of Articles 3(a) and 3(c) of the European SPC Regulation in relation to combination products.
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。
