![]() |
Greenpeace and the patent system share the same objective -- world change |
The CJEU proceedings in Case C-34/10 concerned the German national patent. This is quite separate from the proceedings at the EPO on the corresponding EP patent. The EP patent was revoked in opposition proceedings, but this was appealed. The Technical Board of Appeal has issued its decision T 1808/13. A copy can be downloaded from the file history here or viewed here. The Board has remitted the patent to the Opposition Division for further examination on the basis of the Sixth Auxiliary Request filed on 21 January 2015. The language of proceedings at the EPO was German, so all the papers on the EP patent are in German too.
![]() |
Other nations blow their own trumpets about their IP |

The Minister (left) with Isabel Davies |
Around the weblogs. PatLit features a guest post from Richard Kempner, Brian Whitehead and Stuart Jackson on the brace of recent Court of Appeals patent decisions (ConvaTec and Actavis v Lilly) which are currently preoccupying those good souls who spend their lives seeking to extract meaning from patent claims and descriptions. This Kat has also posted an item there on British Gas v VanClare, an instructive extempore decision of Arnold J on whether and when bifurcation is possible in England and Wales. Over on Class 46, Tiina Komppa reports on the registrability of "SUOMEN PAKASTETUIN JÄÄTELÖ" as a trade mark for ice cream: apart from some subtle word-play, there is a discussion of whether consumers choose ice cream on the basis of how frozen it is. The SPC Blog carries a fascinating post from Gian Paolo di Santo on the quetiapine patent litigation in Turin, which has seen a court taking the unusual step of rejecting the guidance of the court-appointed expert. Finally, on the 1709 Blog, Andy Johnstone relates the content of this year's Sir Hugh Laddie Lecture, delivered by Judge Alex Kozinski.

No comments:
Post a Comment