Schlich Ltd +44(0) 1903 717001 info@schlich.co.uk
  • Schlich China
  • Client Portal
Schlich Ltd
  • Our Firm
  • IP Services
    • Patents
    • EPO Oppositions & Appeals
    • UKIPO Proceedings
    • UPC Proceedings
    • Trade Marks
    • Designs
    • IP Strategy
  • Patent Specialities
    • Life Sciences & Biotech
    • Chemical & Pharmaceutical
    • Mechanical, Engineering and Physics
    • Software, Electronics and Communications
  • Insights
  • Inventors’ Zone
  • Contact
Select Page
From EPO to UPC: The Lasting Impact of Prosecution on Claim Interpretation

From EPO to UPC: The Lasting Impact of Prosecution on Claim Interpretation

by Agne Augustinaite | Jun 16, 2026 | UPC

Background The Claimant, Agathon, was the proprietor of a European patent relating to a mechanical system designed to improve alignment in industrial machinery. Particularly, the invention concerns the repeated opening and closing of heavy metal components where...
When the window moves but the law does not: Motion marks at EUIPO

When the window moves but the law does not: Motion marks at EUIPO

by Agne Augustinaite | Apr 2, 2026 | Designs & Copyright

Background The applicant Kct GmbH & Co. KG filed an application for a motion mark depicting the opening and closing of a window, as depicted below. The EUIPO rejected the application for lack of distinctiveness, and the Board of Appeal upheld that decision,...
Claim Interpretation and Other Lessons from Otec v. Steros at the UPC Court of Appeal

Claim Interpretation and Other Lessons from Otec v. Steros at the UPC Court of Appeal

by Luke Pettit | Jan 15, 2026 | UPC

Background The UPC Court of Appeal’s decision in Otec v. Steros provides an interesting insight into claim interpretation and the constraints on relying on post-filing experimental evidence at the UPC. The case, UPC Court of Appeal decision 579/2025, arose from a...
Claim Interpretation At The EPO: Clear Claim Language Might Not Mean What You Think It Does

Claim Interpretation At The EPO: Clear Claim Language Might Not Mean What You Think It Does

by Alyson Lam | Dec 2, 2025 | EPO

In a further development, T1849/23 has become the first case where clear claim language is broadened by definitions and/or embodiments provided in the description. Background T 1849/23 concerned an appeal filed by Alois Kober GmbH, the Opponent, against the Opposition...
The CJEU Considers Infringement of a LEGO Registered Design Right Through the Eyes of the “Informed User”

The CJEU Considers Infringement of a LEGO Registered Design Right Through the Eyes of the “Informed User”

by David Eyre | Nov 5, 2025 | Designs & Copyright

Background  LEGO A/S (‘LEGO’) owns the following registered Community designs (‘RCD’) for ‘building blocks from a toy building set’ (Locarno class 21.01):  – RCD no. 001950981-0001  – RCD no. 002137190-0002  The defendant, Pozitív Energiaforrás Kft....
« Older Entries

Recent Posts

  • Teva v Eli Lilly: a different route for antibody genus claims?
  • When Fame Backfires: Titles of George Orwell’s Best-Selling Novels Ruled to Lack Distinctiveness as a Result of their Fame
  • Schlich listed as one of Financial Times’ Leading Patent Law Firms in Europe for 2026
  • G 1/26: The EPO’s Unfinished Business on Claim Interpretation
  • Watch Out for Bad Faith – Breitling for Women

Recent Comments

    CIPA
    IPReg
    CITMA
    • Instagram

    Services

    • Patents
    • EPO Oppositions & Appeals
    • UKIPO Proceedings
    • UPC Proceedings
    • Trade Marks
    • Designs
    • IP Strategy

    About

    • Our Firm
    • Careers
    • Our People
    • Policies

    Contact

    • Contact
    • Inventors Zone
    © 2026 Schlich, All rights reserved | Built by Molokini
    European Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys. Schlich Ltd is a UK limited company, registration no. 05238489, address: 9 St Catherine's Road, Littlehampton, West Sussex, BN17 5HS.