You are here: Home > Knowledge bank > News
  • Ruling out the prior art

    28 January 2015

    The EPO Board of Appeal decision T 1488/10 examines whether or not a feature in a figure of a prior art document can be measured to assert that a claim is not novel, if the figure appears to be to scale.   Previous case law on this matter generally indicates that schematic drawings, unlike construction […]

    Read more >
  • UK Court of Appeal orders re-trial in Interflora v M&S keyword advertising battle

    16 January 2015

    In the latest decision in the long-running dispute between Interflora and Marks and Spencer (‘M&S’), which concerns M&S’ use of the INTERFLORA trade mark in internet keyword advertising, the UK Court of Appeal (‘CoA’) has ordered that the case undergo re-trial in the High Court. In doing so, the CoA overturned Mr Justice Arnold’s (‘Arnold […]

    Read more >
  • Second medical use claims: time to drop the Swiss?

    14 January 2015

    In T1570/09, the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) had to decide on a claim set that included both a Swiss-type claim and a purpose-limited product claim under Article 54(5) EPC 2000. The two second medical use claims were formulated as follows (emphasis added). 1. Use of at least one member selected […]

    Read more >
  • VOLVO and LOVOL – not similar

    13 January 2015

    A decision has been issued in the cases of Volvo Trademark Holding AB v OHIM (Case T-524/11 and Case T-525/11). The car manufacturer Volvo has failed in its most recent attempt to prevent the registration of two figurative trade marks containing the sign LOVOL.   The European General Court has agreed with the OHIM Opposition […]

    Read more >
  • Cartier v BSky B – Website blocking orders extended to Trade Mark Infringement

    8 January 2015

    Mr Justice Arnold sitting in the Chancery Division of the High Court of England & Wales has recently handed down his decision in Cartier, Montblanc and Richemont v BSkyB, BT, TalkTalk, EE and Virgin (Open Rights Group intervening) in which he granted orders requiring Internet Service Providers to block access to websites which infringe trade […]

    Read more >
  • Are the public interested in patent infringement? Not according to the supreme court

    6 January 2015

    In Les Laboratoires Servier & another (Servier) v Apotex Inc & others (Apotex) (see here) the Supreme Court ruled that patent infringement does not engage the public interest. It appears that the “illegality defence”, which relies on harmful effects on public well-being, cannot be used to avoid paying injunctive damages relating to potential patent infringement. […]

    Read more >