Starting with a brand new week, here is your weekly catch-up!
Image by Riana Harvey |
Guest UPCKats, Hiske Roos, and Laura Mikkelsen (Carpmaels), reported on the recent decision of Mala Technologies v Nokia UPC_CFI-484/2023. The two revocation actions Nokia had filed against Mala’s EP 2 044 709 in the German national court and the UPC included the main issue on the lis pendens rules in Art. 29 – 31 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012. The Court divided this key issue into three questions and referred to Art. 31 UPCA, which determines the international jurisdiction of the UPC. Rose Hughes analysed T 1259/22 concerning the patent of a cell therapy treatment for cancer patients using plerixafor. Plerixafor (Mozobil) is used to reduce the side effects of chemotherapy in a method of cell therapy for cancer patients in which the patient's stem cells are harvested before chemotherapy. This patent, which is related to a cell therapy treatment, has the challenge of defining the specific product of the therapy. Here, the “product” is a heterogenous population of living cells, making defining it in a patent claim challenging. In this regard, the Board of Appeal went through a step-by-step process to find a treatment-related link between the claimed composition and a claimed medical step. However, in the end, it was concluded that there was a lack of novelty, and the patent was revoked.
IP Job Opportunities and Events
In the last Saturday Sundries post, Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot informed the readers about several events and opportunities. These include the EIPTN’s 16th Anniversary Conference and the oriGIn 2024 Expert Meeting, both of which will be held in October 2024, and several job opportunities. Moreover, WIPO has published a working paper titled “Closing Innovation and Intellectual Property Diversity Gaps which you can check here.
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html