机械和其他科技
专利保护
机械领域的专利保护要求我们了解零件是如何装配在一起并相互作用的。我们喜欢机械发明带来的实际参与体验，无论是医疗设备、道路安全设备还是机动车辆的可选配件。
在我们办公室的展示架上，有各种设备的例子，我们用各种类型的知识产权为客户提供专利保护。有些在机械方面的比较容易置放，如美发师的染发盆或铝制安瓿。另一些则过于庞大，无法向您实物展示。比如说，我们一个建筑客户制造的横跨数百米的体育场馆。在材料领域，我们的客户拥有的涂层技术，很可能就在您拥有的大多数的电气设备中发现。
对于施利希所有的客户，我们都会深入了解关键的连接和部件。这些关键的连接和部件都是施利希要保护的发明专利的核心。
近期案例解析
阅读来自施利希团队最近与机械和其他科技领域相关的案例解析。
The Federal Circuit clarifies conflicts arising between Patent Term Adjustment and Obviousness-type Double Patenting
We perceive a sigh of relief from some patent holders following issue of the US Federal Circuit’s decision in Allergan USA v. MSN Labs, 24-1061 (Fed. Cir. August 13, 2014) (“Allergan”). This decision appears to forestall the revocation of some patents following the concerning precedential Federal Circuit decision In re Cellect (No. 22-1293) (“Cellect”).
What is Obvious about a US Design Patent?
There are significant differences in the requirements for registration of a design right in the US versus the UK and Europe. A recent en banc decision by the US Federal Circuit in LKQ v. GM Global Tech. Operations has widened those divisions still further.
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.
The EPO Examining Division are Criticized by the Boards of Appeal for Breaking the Rules of Procedure
The Board have remitted this recently refused case to the Examining Division who have been criticized for committing several substantial procedural violations, including depriving an applicant of their all-important right to oral proceedings.
Claim interpretation – how can “bigger” be the same as “not bigger?”
Notwithstanding the doctrine of equivalents now used to interpret claim scope, the principle of purposive construction is still used to interpret specific terms in a patent claim. In this case this yielded the result that “bigger” could be the same as “not bigger”.
The UPC have been Quick to Issue their First Preliminary Injunction
One of the first preliminary injunctions was issued by the Unified Patent Court on 22 June 2023. The decision was made ex parte and, remarkably, on the same day as the application for an injunction was filed by the proprietor, despite the respondent’s efforts to avoid the issue of an injunction by filing a protective letter.
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.
Free speech prevails in Lite-Netics, LLC v. Nu Tsai Capital LLC, d/b/a Holiday Bright Lights
Lite-Netics, LLC ‘Lite-Netics’ and Nu Tsai Capital LLC, d/b/a Holiday Bright Lights ‘HBL’ sell string lights primarily for use in decorating buildings during the holiday season. Lite-Netics brought an infringement action against HBL before the District Court of Nebraska with respect to two US patents. It also sent notices to some of its customers, also customers of HBL, asserting infringement and its intent to enforce its rights. HBL filed counterclaims, including for state-law torts, and requested a temporary restraining order (TRO) and subsequent preliminary injunction to prevent Lite-Netics making accusations with respect to patent infringement. The District Court granted both the TRO and subsequent preliminary injunction but on appeal the Federal Circuit found that the District Court abused its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction because the bar to stopping free speech was clearly not met.
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。
