The European “WARF” Decision – G02/06 – changed examination practice at the European Patent Office in relation to inventions involving human ES cells. Rule 28 EPC 2000 provides that European patents shall not be granted in respect of...
To be patentable a claim must be new and comprise an inventive step. Novelty is a question of fact: are all of the features of the claim present in a relevant single disclosure dating prior to the priority date of the patent application? However, the assessment of...
Brüstle v. Greenpeace e.V. (C-34/10) concerns a patent held by Professor Oliver Brüstle, who is the director of the Institute of Reconstructive Neurobiology at the University of Bonn. His research includes treating neurological disease by transplanting neural stem...
Prioritised Examination As long as the patent claims are not too complex, and for a fee, the process of examination (and potentially grant) of a US patent can be accelerated. Virtual Marking Products should still be marked ‘patent’ or ‘pat.’...
Concern and apprehension have been rife for patentees and practitioners alike in light of the Brüstle decision, which set out the CJEU’s decision as to what is and what is not excluded from patentability by the morality provisions of the Biotech Directive. Even...
![Omnipharm Limited v Merial [2011] EWHC 3393 (Pat)](https://www.schlich.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Omnipharm-Limited-v-Merial-2011-EWHC-3393-Pat.jpg)
Recent Comments