H I R S C H & P A R T N E R S A v o c a t S o l i c i t o r R e c h t s a n w a l t CHEMICAL INVENTIONS IN FRANCE Recent decisions and case law Dr Denis.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Patent Law Overview. Outline Effect of patent protection Effect of patent protection Substantive requirements for patent protection Substantive requirements.
Advertisements

Intellectual Property Fundamentals Ed Genocchio - Principal of Spruson & Ferguson - Mechanical Group Presentation to The Australian Technology Showcase.
Practice of IP High Court in Infringement Cases involving Doctrine of Equivalents April 19, 2012 Intellectual Property High Court Judge, Hideko Takemiya.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION OFFICE OF PATENT COUNSEL March 16, 2001.
EACCNJ European Union IP Forum Mark DeLuca Pepper Hamilton LLP September 27, 2012.
European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims
Protection of Computer Software and Databases Arkadiusz Kwapisz, Examiner Patent Examination Department Patent Office of the Republic of Poland Software-implemented.
1 35 USC 112, 1 st paragraph enablement Enablement Practice in TC 1600 Deborah Reynolds, SPE
The America Invents Act (AIA) - Rules and Implications of First to File, Prior Art, and Non-obviousness -
Prosecution Group Luncheon Patents August Proposed First-To-File Rules Add definitions in AIA to Rules Declarations for removing references based.
Invention Spotting – Identifying Patentable Inventions Martin Vinsome June 2012.
H I R S C H & P A R T N E R S A v o c a t S o l i c i t o r R e c h t s a n w a l t PATENT LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT Strategies for originators and tactics.
J. Gordon Thomson Professional Corporation Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public (Ontario) Registered Patent Agent (Canada & USA) Registered Trade-mark.
Drugs which are not patentable
Determining Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex TC3600 Business Methods January 2008.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School March 3, 2008 Patent - Nonobviousness.
Patents 101 April 1, 2002 And now, for something new, useful and not obvious.
® ® From Invention to Start-Up Seminar Series University of Washington The Legal Side of Things Invention Protection Gary S. Kindness Christensen O’Connor.
Lauren MacLanahan Office of Technology Licensing GTRC.
PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 7: Anticipation and Obviousness 1 Patent Engineering IEOR 190G CET: Center for Entrepreneurship &Technology Week 7 Dr. Tal.
Utility Requirement in Japan Makoto Ono, Ph.D. Anderson, Mori & Tomotsune Website:
FICPI ABC 30/5/07The Unwritten Rules of the EPO – Richard Howson The Unwritten Rules of the European Patent Office Richard Howson Kilburn & Strode, UK.
AIPPI seminarParis, 7 November 2013 Karsten Koeniger, Harmsen Utescher 1 Patents: Infringement under the doctrine of equivalence - Germany - Karsten Koeniger,
Patent and Intellectual Property
Dr. Michael Berger, European Patent Attorney © Michael Berger Intellectual Property (IP): Patents for Inventions.
PROTECTING INVENTIONS in the international environment Eytan Jaffe – Israeli Patent Attorney.
European Patent Applicants Filing in China Common Mistakes Zheng Li Zhongzi Law Office September, 2014.
H I R S C H & P A R T N E R S A v o c a t S o l i c i t o r R e c h t s a n w a l t Pharmaceutical settlement agreements and competition law A litigation.
1 Patent Law in the Age of IoT The Landscape Has Shifted. Are You Prepared? 1 Jeffrey A. Miller, Esq.
Patent Application Procedures in Europe by Dr. Ulla Allgayer Patent Attorney in Munich Germany.
Seminar Industrial Property Protection Prague, 4 June 2003 Patent Protection in Europe Heidrun Krestel Liaison Officer Member States Co-operation Programmes.
July 18, U.S.C. 103(c) as Amended by the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act (Public Law ) Enacted December 10,
Heli PihlajamaaLondon, Director Patent Law (5.2.1) Clarity - Article 84 EPC.
Introduction to Patents Anatomy of a Patent & Procedures for Getting a Patent Margaret Hartnett Commercialisation & IP Manager University.
Varian Australia Pty Ltd – Some Patenting Issues David Carmichael 6 th May 2004.
ENFORCEMENT OF PATENT RIGHTS IN EUROPE The Hungarian way Zsolt SZENTPÉTERI S.B.G.&K. Patent and Law Offices, Budapest International Seminar Intellectual.
1 Written Description Analysis and Capon v. Eshhar Jeffrey Siew Supervisory Patent Examiner AU 1645 USPTO (571)
Intellectual Property Law © 2007 IBM Corporation EUPACO 2 – The European Patent Conference 16 May 2007 Patent Quality Roger Burt IBM Europe.
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C U.S. Patent Claims By James A. Larson.
© 2004 VOSSIUS & PARTNER Opposition in the Procedural System by Dr. Johann Pitz AIPPI Hungary, June 2 – 4, 2004 Kecskemét.
New Sections 102 & 103 (b) Conditions for Patentability- (1) IN GENERAL- Section 102 of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: -`Sec.
Overview Validity of patent hinges on novelty, utility, and non-obviousness Utility generally not an issue Pre-suit investigation focuses on infringement,
FY09 Restriction Petition Update; Comparison of US and National Stage Restriction Practice Julie Burke TC1600 Quality Assurance Specialist
SM © 2012 Patterson Thuente Christensen Pedersen, P.A., some rights reserved - DISCLAIMER: This presentation and any information.
“THE UNITARY PATENT AND THE UNIFIED PATENT COURT: A PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW PERSPECTIVE” Prof Dr Paul L.C. Torremans School of Law University of Nottingham.
Oppositions, Appeals and Oral Proceedings at the EPO Michael Williams.
Patentable Subject Matter Donald M. Cameron. 2 Patents: The Bargain Public: gets use of invention after patent expires Inventor/Owner: gets limited monopoly.
© 2008 International Intellectual Property June 16, 2009 Class 2 Introduction to Patents.
1 Examination Guidelines for Business Method Invention 24. Jan Young-tae Son( 孫永泰, Electronic Commerce Examination Team Korean.
1 TOPIC III - PATENT INVALIDATION PROCEDURES EU-CHINA WORKSHOP ON THE CHINESE PATENT LAW HARBIN, SEPTEMBER 2008 Dr. Gillian Davies.
© 2011 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP which may not be reproduced,
Yuichi Watanabe Osha Liang LLP January 26, 2016 Practice Tips: Prosecution of Japan-origin US applications 1 © AIPLA 2015.
UK claim interpretation: “purposive construction” Peter Hale.
Patents 101 March 28, 2006 And now, for something new, useful and not obvious.
Technology Transfer Office
Patents 101 March 28, 2006 And now, for something new, useful and not obvious.
Preparing a Patent Application
Keiko K. Takagi Sughrue Mion, PLLC
Options to Protect an Invention: the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and Trade Secrets Hanoi October 24, 2017 Peter Willimott Senior Program Officer WIPO.
George Kapsalas Patentbüro Paul Rosenich AG
Patentability of AI related inventions
OTHER INVALIDITY CHALLENGES
Doctrine of Equivalents
Prosecution Luncheon Patent March 2017
Milena Lonati PD Quality Management DG2, European Patent Office
Preparing a Patent Application
Upcoming changes in the European Patent Office practice on allowing claim amendments in pending patent applications (Article 123(2) EPC) Christof Keussen.
US Patent Applications
Claim drafting strategies when filing a European patent application or entering the European phase of a PCT-application Christof Keussen
A tutorial and update on patentable subject matter
Presentation transcript:

H I R S C H & P A R T N E R S A v o c a t S o l i c i t o r R e c h t s a n w a l t CHEMICAL INVENTIONS IN FRANCE Recent decisions and case law Dr Denis Schertenleib Avocat & Solicitor Partner Hirsch & Associés Paris France

H I R S C H & P A R T N E R S Dr Denis Schertenleib HIRSCH & PARTNERS Recent decisions Inventive step – obviousness to try Inventive step – technical problem solved Added matter

H I R S C H & P A R T N E R S Dr Denis Schertenleib HIRSCH & PARTNERS Solvay v DuPont High Court of Paris, 1 July Patentee had identified unexpectedly efficient fire-extinguishing compositions. Obvious to try where: The prior art prompts the skilled worker to try out a compound in the search for improved properties. The prompt can be the need to comply with new regulations (e.g. pollution). Notwithstanding unexpected potency is identified through experiments. Improvement can be merely a bonus effect.

H I R S C H & P A R T N E R S Dr Denis Schertenleib HIRSCH & PARTNERS Merck v Teva Arrow & EG Labo v Merck Two separate judgments of the High Court of Paris on FOSAMAX rendered on February No inventive step involved in a patent on the therapeutic use of a compound if the compound was part of a shortlist of compounds worth investigating. Notwithstanding that the compound may have had an unexpected therapeutic efficiency. Improvement was merely a bonus effect, which cannot confer patentability on obvious solutions.

H I R S C H & P A R T N E R S Dr Denis Schertenleib HIRSCH & PARTNERS Inventive step – the technical problem solved The approach of French Courts is objective. The patentees subjective solved technical problem is not essential. The technical problem is based on the most relevant prior art, but needs to be disclosed in the description.

H I R S C H & P A R T N E R S Dr Denis Schertenleib HIRSCH & PARTNERS The disclosure of the technical problem solved Kverneland v Exel, 21 March 2008, Paris Court of Appeal & Cobra v Morito, High Court of Paris 30 March Patentee sought to rely on an integer of the claim that resulted in a technical effect that was never described in the patent. A technical feature of a claim can contribute to inventive step only if it has an associated technical effect that is disclosed in the patent.

H I R S C H & P A R T N E R S Dr Denis Schertenleib HIRSCH & PARTNERS Technical problem - tips Need to specify in the description the technical effects / advantages achieved by the invention. Need to specify in the description the technical effect of each of the integers of the claims.

H I R S C H & P A R T N E R S Dr Denis Schertenleib HIRSCH & PARTNERS Added Matter Art 123(2) of the European Patent Convention. Ground for revocation. DSSI v European Central Bank, Paris High Court, 9 January The claims must be derived from the application as filed directly and without ambiguity. Test is not of obviousness to the skilled worker. Cannot combine different parts of the description artificially. Limitations to the claims can also be added matter.

H I R S C H & P A R T N E R S Dr Denis Schertenleib HIRSCH & PARTNERS Added matter - tips Need to take great care when reformulating claims. Critical times: Upon entry into Euro PCT when removing multiple independent claims. Limitation during prosecution (especially based on ranges, parameters and specific examples). Reformulation for the purpose of clarity.

H I R S C H & P A R T N E R S Dr Denis Schertenleib HIRSCH & PARTNERS Conclusion Obviousness to try is now a strong sign of lack of inventive step. The invention will not be inventive if: it results from an « obvious to try » course of experiments even if improved properties are discovered, these being a « bonus effect » of the obvious experiments. It is essential to describe the advantages of the invention in the description. French decisions are now compliant with EPOs strict case law on added matter.