The recent Board of Appeal decision T1385/15 concerns European patent EP1865998, which claimed a disinfectant agent for killing bacterial, viruses and fungi through mechanical disinfection of a surface.
In an unsurprising but nevertheless disappointing move, the UK has unequivocally stated that they will not be part of the UPC, despite having ratified its agreement in April 2018.
Updated 1 June: Latest updates from the intellectual property offices of the UK, and Europe, and details of relief available to clients affected by Covid-19.
In view of the spread of Covid-19 (coronavirus) and everchanging responses by the UK and Europe, we are monitoring the situation closely and will report any changes that affect our operations or those of the UK and European intellectual property offices.
A party may not be able to accelerate appeal proceedings at the EPO if they initiate the proceedings in the name of another party in order to conceal their identity.
In case T 1299/15 the Boards of Appeal reasoned the burden of proof had shifted from the opponent to the patentee. The patent was revoked for insuffciency.
Although a stay of national proceedings is the ‘default’ position in the UK, the stay was refused in this instance because of the combination of an absolute right of appeal, a minimum of two years to appeal and the potential of the ping pong effect before the EPO.
The EPO has refused two patent applications in which the inventor was named as an Artificial Intelligence (AI) machine called "DABUS".
Friday, 31 January 2020 is the widely publicised date on which the United Kingdom formally leaves the European Union (EU), but what does this mean for your Intellectual Property (IP) rights?
In the recent decision, T1665/16, the Boards of Appeal discussed the ability of a third party to intervene at the appeal stage and, in doing so, introduce new prior art documents into the proceedings that would be inadmissible if they had been filed by an opponent already party to the proceedings.