Insights

Banner image with text: 'Stay informed with the latest IP news' and the following words listed: Insights, Interviews, Webinars.

New Patent Prosecution Highway Agreement between the DKPTO and Russias ROSPATENT enters into force

By Troels Peter Rørdam | Posted on February 20, 2012

As mentioned in my previous blog entry dated 23 January 2012, the DKPTO announced that due to user demand efforts to establish a PPH-agreement with the Russian Patent Office had been initiated. Now, the efforts have matured into a PPH-agreement between DKPTO and ROSPATENT, which entered into force on 1 February 2012. Prosecution via the...

Tags: Denmark, patent prosecution highway, PPH, Russia

Which business methods are patentable in the US?

By AWA | Posted on February 9, 2012

When the Bilski decision was handed down by the US Supreme Court in 2010, it was taken as a clear indication that business methods would now be more difficult to patent in the US. After all, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the subject-matter at stake, a method for hedging risk, was abstract,...

Tags: business methods, Patent, US

EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal repeats obligation to raise objections in time

By AWA | Posted on February 1, 2012

Last week, the European Patent Office released two new decisions by the Enlarged Board of Appeal on petitions for review, R 2/11 and R 10/11. Both the underlying petitions were based on what the petitioners regarded as fundamental procedural defects before respective Boards of Appeal 3.2.04 and 3.2.03. Both cases are appeals from opposition proceedings. In R...

Tags: Board of Appeal, claim amendments, EPO

New PPH-agreement between Denmark and Israel

By Troels Peter Rørdam | Posted on January 23, 2012

The year of 2012 has arrived with new possibilities for Danish patent applicants who wish to obtain a patent abroad in a faster and more cost efficient way: A PPH-agreement, on a pilot project basis, between The Danish Patent and Trademark Office (DKPTO) and the Israeli Patent Office has taken effect from 5 January 2012, thus...

Tags: Denmark, Israel, PPH, Russia

Claiming a non-therapeutic use with inseparably associated therapeutic effect

By AWA | Posted on January 9, 2012

A use of a substance or composition for the treatment of humans by therapy is excluded from patentability according to the EPC Article 53(c). However, claiming a non-therapeutic use of a substance or composition may still fall under this same exclusion if the non-therapeutic use is inseparably associated with a therapeutic use. This was confirmed...

Tags: claim, EPC, technical board of appeal

Court of Justice of the EU confirms zero or negative duration for SPCs

By Sidsel Hauge | Posted on December 13, 2011

On 8 December 2011, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its judgment in case C-125/10 (“Merck”). This case concerns the duration of a Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) according to Article 13 of the SPC Regulation EG/469/2009. Summary of the case Merck applied for a SPC for the product Sitaglipin under conditions...

Tags: CJ, ECJ, Patent, Pharmaceuticals, SPC

Focus on China

By Niklas Mattsson | Posted on November 18, 2011

The fact that China is growing in importance is well known. To Awapatent, this growth is visible in our day-to-day work, both from the questions we get about IP in China from our European clients, and from the growing demand for our services as a European firm for Chinese clients. Naturally, we make it a...

Tags: china, IP, Patent

Busy weeks of practice

By AWA | Posted on November 4, 2011

 This is now the third week of the first practice period at the home office. Now I find myself thinking about IP everywhere I go; when I see a logotype, when I see a clever invention, even when I see the tiny TM-mark after a company name. I am becoming someone who must tell her...

Tags: awapatent, specialist programme

Cooperative Patent Classification – a new patent classification system

By Troels Peter Rørdam | Posted on November 2, 2011

Everybody who ever conducted patent litterature searches knows the problems arising from the very different criteria for classifying patents in the respective patent classification systems used in Europe by the EPO, ECLA (European CLAssification), and in the USA by the USPTO, USPC (US Patent Classification. Fortunately the solution is nearby! The EPO and the USPTO have...

Tags: classification system, Europe, Patent, USA

Recent contributors

Monika Trombitas Andersson, Associate and Attorney at Law, Lund, Sweden

Monika Trombitas Andersson

Associate, Attorney at Law, European Trademark and Design Attorney

Emily Chamberlain, Senior Associate and Patents, Stockholm, Sweden

Emily Chamberlain

Senior Associate, Patents

Niklas Mattsson, Partner and European Patent Attorney, Stockholm, Sweden

Niklas Mattsson

Partner, European Patent Attorney, Authorised Swedish Patent Attorney, UPC Representative

Ai-Leen Lim, Partner and Attorney at Law, Hong Kong SAR

Ai-Leen Lim

Partner, Attorney at Law, Group Vice President

Julia Wang, Senior Associate and Attorney at Law, Beijing, China

Julia Wang

Senior Associate, Attorney at Law

Ylva Strandberg, Counsel and AU and NZ Patent Attorney, Stockholm, Sweden

Ylva Strandberg

Counsel, AU and NZ Patent Attorney