AWA
Is use of a Community trademark in one of the EU member states sufficient?
By AWA | Posted on May 31, 2010
As is well known, a Community trademark (CTM) must be put into genuine use within five years of the registration date in order to maintain protection. When the Community trademark was launched in 1996, it was decided politically that use “in the Community” was satisfied by use in one member state. This decision was laid...
The language of proceedings used before the EPO can never be changed
By AWA | Posted on February 18, 2010
The language of proceedings used before the EPO can never be changed – this includes the language used before the international receiving office if that language is English, French or German The Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) has for the second time this week issued a decision. This latest decision, G...
Trade Mark User Requirements Tightened Following US Supreme Court Ruling
By AWA | Posted on December 3, 2009
Following a key US Supreme Court ruling earlier this year we announced that the practice in regard to the fulfilment of the user requirements for trade marks has been tightened in the USA. Consequently, an entire trade mark registration can be cancelled if the owner can only prove use of trade mark for a part...
Software related inventions at the Enlarged Board of Appeals
By AWA | Posted on October 14, 2009
It is now almost a year since the President of the EPO referred four questions relating to the patentability of software related inventions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (G03/08). The hope is of course that the EBA finally may put several issues to rest, issues that have been debated in and out of the...
Tags: inventions, patentability, Software, software patenting
Is the era of cascading divisionals coming to an end?
By AWA | Posted on October 6, 2009
Filing a divisional used to be a common procedure before oral proceedings as well as before grant of a patent. But for European applications this possibility has now been drastically restricted, and new rules concerning divisionals (rule 36 EPC) will be in place from April 1, 2010. Until recently there were considerable uncertainties regarding the application...
Changes to the German Intellectual Property Laws
By AWA | Posted on September 24, 2009
A series of changes to the German intellectual property laws was recently passed by the German parliament. The reforms enter into force on 1 October 2009. Of greatest importance are the changes to the patent law regarding patent invalidity proceedings. The changes aim at speeding up the process by limiting the possibility of making changes...
Tags: fee, filing, german intellectual property, patent application
Centocor (Johnson & Johnson) awarded the largest patent verdict in U.S. history
By AWA | Posted on July 6, 2009
1.67 billion U.S. dollars, $1.16 billion in lost profit, and $504 million in royalties. That’s what Centocor is awarded in damages for infringement of their patents. On Monday, June 29, a jury found that Abbott Laboratories had willfully infringed two patents covering antibodies against tumor necrosis factor owned by Centocor. Abbott’s drug Humira was found...
Tags: Infringement, Patent, verdict
What are the consequences of the decision from the Federal Circuit on the new USPTO regulations?
By AWA | Posted on April 7, 2009
In August 2007 the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a rules package intended to limit the number of patent claims in a single patent application to 25 (including a maximum of 5 independent claims) and also to restrict the possibility of filing what are known as “continuation applications”. The main aim of...
Tags: federal circuit, patent application, patent claims, uspto regulations
EPO’s fight against divisional applications
By AWA | Posted on February 10, 2009
EPO is seeking to limit the submission of divisional applications, which would be a severe blow to small, newly started technical companies in particular. Although a stop was put to their latest proposal by the Committee on Patent Law, it is highly likely that despite this setback we will see a modified version put before...
Swedish Court of Patent Appeals remits cases to the Swedish Patent Office for further prosecution
By AWA | Posted on January 28, 2009
Background OMX Technology AB, who i.a. owns and runs the Stockholm Stock Exchange, filed Swedish patent application 0201756-4 on 10 June 2002 which subsequently was refused 12 March 2004 on the basis of lacking technical character and thereby being considered not to be regarded as an invention in accordance with 1 § PL, i.e. the...
Recent contributors
Partner, European Patent Attorney
Senior Associate, Attorney at Law
Partner, Attorney at Law, Group Vice President
Partner, Attorney at Law, Business Area Manager
Senior Counsel, European Patent Attorney
