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。
UPC Patent Enforcement in the Post-Brexit Era
Has the UPC overreached its jurisdiction in this latest ruling?
“A Single Piece of American Cheese” Leading the Way to Change at the US Copyright Office
The US Copyright Office takes a step forward in acknowledging the copyrightability of AI-generated works with their recent decision to register “A Single Piece of American Cheese”
EPO Tightens Patent Rules for Medical Data Processing Innovations
Background and First Instance Decisions In Europe, claims directed toward mathematical methods are allowable only if it is clear that they contribute to the “technical character” of an invention. Under European practice, to assess the inventive step of a mathematical method claim, it is evaluated whether the method contributes to the “technical character” of the […]
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”.
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。
