tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post4334504112190616611..comments2024-03-19T10:57:44.760+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Smith & Nephew seek to go to the Supreme Court and EPO proceedings continue - the war is not overVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-73325486953577837422016-03-08T14:11:47.807+00:002016-03-08T14:11:47.807+00:00EP 1,343,510 Appeal dismissed at EPO.EP 1,343,510 Appeal dismissed at EPO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-561530002686256262015-07-31T15:23:29.406+01:002015-07-31T15:23:29.406+01:00If I were the opponent, I would be mentioning to t...If I were the opponent, I would be mentioning to the board that there is no test described in the patent as to how the term "photostable" is to be tested. What temperature? What time? Exposed to light or not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-46980963580300829242015-07-31T14:47:40.598+01:002015-07-31T14:47:40.598+01:00Am I being particularly dense here? If the claims ...Am I being particularly dense here? If the claims with which Convatec obtained the decision of infringement have been held invalid by the BoA, the patent can only be maintained in a more limited form (unless the hypothetical recourse to the Enlarged Board is successful) so Convatec will need at some point in the future to persuade the courts that such more limited claims still infringe. How could there be a question of enforcing an injunction for a claim which has been washed away?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com