MECHANICAL, ENGINEERING AND PHYSICS
PATENT PROTECTION
We handle patent applications in a wide range of fields, including:
-
- automotive
- aerospace
- medical devices
- energy
- advanced manufacturing
- safety equipment
- consumer products
Our clients range from multinational organisations, to SMEs, universities and lone inventors. We work with the engineers, scientists and IP and tech transfer professionals.
By way of example, we have recently helped our clients protect innovations relating to: drug administration devices, fashion / garment design, cosmetic goods, and electric bicycle drive systems.
Recent Insights
Read the latest insights from the Schlich team reporting recent cases relevant to the mechanical sector and other technologies.
Claim Interpretation At The EPO: Clear Claim Language Might Not Mean What You Think It Does
Since the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal issued decision G1/24, it has become clear from the number of recent decisions of EPO Technical Boards of Appeal that the description is not, in practice, being used to narrow the interpretation of otherwise clear claim language. T1849/23 has become the first case where clear claim language is broadened by definitions and/or embodiments provided in the description.
The CJEU Considers Infringement of a LEGO Registered Design Right Through the Eyes of the “Informed User”
In Decision C-211/24 the CJEU have confirmed that the ‘informed user’ in the context of considering infringement of a registered design should be understood as someone who is particularly observant and knowledgeable, often due to personal experience or extensive knowledge of the sector.
Lynk Labs asks Supreme Court of the United States to define prior art in the context of inter partes review proceedings
With the America Invents Act, Congress introduced a new administrative procedure for challenging patents – inter partes review (IPR). Any person, except the Proprietor, can file a petition for review but only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” (35 U.S.C. § 311(b)). In a judgement handed down in January 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to hold several of Lynk Lab’s patent claims as obvious over a US patent application filed before, but published after, the priority date of Lynk Lab’s patent claims. Key to this finding was the Federal Circuit’s affirmation that patent applications may serve as prior art in IPR proceedings as of their filing date and fall within the ambit of the category printed publications. Now Lynk Labs has petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari asking “Whether patent applications that become publicly accessible only after the challenged patent’s critical date are “prior art *** printed publications” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 311(b)”. In Lynk Lab’s opinion, they are not.
Cancelled claims can come back to haunt you: Lessons from Colibri v. Medtronic
Patent infringement in the United States continues to evolve, particularly in how prosecution history impacts the interpretation of patent claims during the Infringement proceedings. A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Colibri v. Medtronic offers a compelling example of this trend, illustrating how choices made during patent prosecution can later affect enforceable rights.
Is ChatGPT a skilled person? The EPO says no.
In today's world, artificial intelligence has become a part of many aspects of our daily lives. Unsurprisingly, AI is also making its way into the field of intellectual property law, as large language models are being used in proceedings before the EPO.
Safestand stands taller as Court of Appeal finds trestle designs valid
The recent Court of Appeal decision in Safestand Limited v Weston serves as a reminder of the importance of ensuring that representations provided as part of a design application are clear and consistent so as to ensure that upon an objective assessment, the representations are found to relate to a single product and not a collection of different embodiments.
Landmark CJEU judgement opens up new avenues for European patent litigation
In a recent landmark judgement, the CJEU confirmed the possibility of European patent holders being able to consolidate actions for patent infringement across multiple EU and non-EU member states at a single EU court. For patent holders looking to assert their IP in an efficient, and likely more cost-effective and harmonious manner, the implications of the CJEU decision on enforcement strategies before both national courts and the UPC are noteworthy.
UPC Patent Enforcement in the Post-Brexit Era
Has the UPC overreached its jurisdiction in this latest ruling?
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.
