Professional
Patents
Patents represent a key aspect of our clients’ intellectual property and may have significant commercial value, whether used to protect core technology, keep competitors out of a particular technical/commercial space, or as a source of revenue through licencing or assignment of rights. We understand that the role of patents may vary depending on the nature and life-stage of our clients’ businesses and seek to offer practical and tailored advice.
In drafting patent applications, we seek to define your inventions in a way that offers commercially-relevant protection, provides flexibility to address any unforeseen objections arising during prosecution, and ultimately provides valuable rights that can be defended and enforced, if required.
The Schlich attorneys adopt a creative and practical approach to prosecution, and have experienced considerable success through direct interaction with EPO and UKIPO Examiners. We can also advise on effective strategies for accelerating prosecution, or deferring costs, to reflect your commercial needs. We are also able to coordinate patent prosecution worldwide, either directly through the European and International (PCT) patent systems or by working through established relationships with trusted foreign law firms.
The Schlich patent team have developed considerable experience, and a proven track record of success, in EPO opposition and appeal proceedings (both offensive and defensive). We are also able to advise on, and propose practical solutions to, potential freedom-to-operate and infringement issues.
Recent Insights
Read the latest insights from the Schlich team reporting recent cases and updates to patent law.
New SPC Referral to CJEU
There has been a new referral to the CJEU from the Supreme Court of Ireland on the interpretation of Articles 3(a) and 3(c) of the European SPC Regulation in relation to combination products.
T 0013/20 – Internet Publication Dates
What constitutes proof of disclosure to the public?
Neurim’s Insomnia Treatment Patents Giving the High Court Sleepless Nights?
This judgement relates to a number of preliminary issues in connection with proceedings relating to the validity of a divisional patent in the name of Neurim and alleged infringement by Viatris (previously Mylan). During the proceedings, Neurim amended the claims of the divisional patent to correspond to the claims of the parent patent, which had been held to be valid by the UK High Court but subsequently revoked by the EPO. The preliminary issues relate to whether Mylan is issue estopped from challenging the validity of the divisional and whether Neurim’s conduct is abusive.
Legal Board of Appeal confirms an AI cannot be the inventor of a patent
The Legal Board of Appeal has confirmed that an AI system cannot be the inventor of a patent application at the EPO, agreeing with the decision of the Receiving Section (reported by us in our article of February 2020).
New Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal on the Use of Post-Published Data to Support Inventive Step Confirmed
Further to our article of September 2021, the Board of Appeal has now confirmed its referral of three questions to the Enlarged Board regarding the use of post-published data in establishing an inventive step.
UK Court of Appeal Confirms that AI Cannot Be An Inventor
Background Dr Thaler filed two UK patent applications and subsequently filed Form 7’s stating that the inventor for both applications was the AI system “DABUS”. Dr Thaler also indicated on the Form 7’s that he had acquired the right to be granted the patents “by ownership of the creativity machine ‘DABUS'”. The UKIPO responded stating […]
An Ambitious New Path for Intellectual Property Rights in China
Background In 2008, the State Council of China issued its “Outline of the National Intellectual Property Strategy”, which set a target of increasing the administration and use of IP rights in China by 2020. Last year, the State Council Information Office announced it believed all of the targets set out in the 2008 Outline had […]
US patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct as a result of contradictory submissions
Belcher’s patent related to a high-pH formulation of L-epinephrine (L-adrenaline) and was granted with a claim to a formulation of pH 2.8-3.3. The formulation of L-epinephrine was also the subject of a new drug application before the FDA. Hospira, who were separately seeking FDA approval for their own L-adrenaline formulation, submitted that Belcher’s patent was […]
Get in touch
Our team of UK and European Patent Attorneys and Chartered Trade Mark Attorneys are highly knowledgeable and experienced in assisting clients with all aspects of their IP needs.
Contact us now to find out more about how we could help you and your business.
