Today the European Patent Office’s Large Board of Appeal will hear a highly contested and much anticipated case on on the patentability of biotechnological enhanced breeding methods (in this case for broccoli and tomatoes). The patentability of biotechnological inventions is equally controversial as whether software patents are eligible for patent protection. Critics argue that patenting biotechnological inventions is nothing less than patenting life itself, despicable as that would be. As with many other inventions that...

During the Intellectual Property Business Congress (IPBC) in Munich one of the more interesting presentations was from Margot Fröhlinger, Director knowledge based economy of the EU Commission (DG Internal Market and Services) who handles the unpopular file on the creation of the EU patent and the creation of  a unified patent litigation system in Europe. Who thinks that US Patent Reform is cumbersome, it pales next to the patent reform process in Europe. The issue at hand is the creation of a unified EU patent litigation system,...

On 12 may 2010, the Enlarged Board of Appeal  of the European Patent Office (EPO) issued its opinion G3/08 on the referral of 22 October 2008 by the President of the EPO on the patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions (CIIs). The Enlarged Board received around a hundred of letters of organizations/individuals expressing their opinion. The Enlarged Board comes to the conclusion that all questions of the president are inadmissible, because the decisions of the Boards of Appeal identified by the President as being different...

Negotiations about a new EU-South Korean Free Trade Agreement have taken a while, but finally parties reached an agreement. Although ambitious, nothing shocking it seems, but as soon words like “intellectual property” and “computer programs” are used in the same context – in this case what is known as “Chapter 10″ of the Trade Agreement, this is like waving a red flag to a bull. The agreement is not all that exciting to read and many provisions are merely confirmations on already existing...

The European Patent Office is unable to find a successor for Allison Brimelow, the current EPO President.  One of the leading candidates is said to be Benoît Battistelli, currently Director General of the French National Institute of Industrial Property.  Battistelli is again a representative of a national Patent Office, this time from France. Mrs. Brimelow was a former UK Patent Office president. No wonder, as most national patent offices want to remain a tight control over their role in the EPO for patent examinations. ...

We overlooked an interesting Note from Prof. Hal Wegner on UK Court of Appeal decision rendered in May 2008. In Actavis UK Ltd. v. Merck & Co. Inc., [2008] EWCA Civ 444 (Court of Appeal 2008) (Ward, Jacob, Rimer, JJ.), the Court of Appeal followed European Patent Office precedent in Genentech/method of administration of IFG-I, T1020/03 [2006] EPOR 9, approving a pharmaceutical use claim, departing from national precedent in favor of a rule following EPC patent precedent. …

One would assume that easier access to information worldwide that internet provides would make it easier for Patent Offices to find prior art against a patent application so as to ensure that only real inventions are passing the patent process and make it to an issued patent. No expert can possibly have the scope, skills and capabilities and knowledge of prior art that deep, individual technical experts anywhere in the world possibly have. Patent Office officials need to understand the patent application in just a limited of...

Senseo is a well known and hugely popular European coffee brewing system developed in 2001 by two Dutch companies, Philips and Douwe Egberts (subsidiary of Sara Lee). This co-branding project resulted in two main innovations, the coffee pads (or “pods”) and its unique design. The Senseo coffee machine combines a patented brewing system from Philips with quality coffee pads from DE. Sara Lee received an European patent for the pads: European patent nr EP o904 717 B1 which was granted in 2001 for a “assembly for use in...

The US Supreme Court will hear arguments later this fall in the KSR vs. Teleflex case (about § 103 of US Patent Law, the standard for “nonobviousness”). Certiorari was granted in June of this year. The potential exists to raise the bar to deny patenting inventions where there is no motivation in the prior art to combine individual known components. KSR has the potential to be the biggest patent case since at least the A&P case (A. & P. Tea CO. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950) from more than fifty...