SONN Patentanwälte – IP Attorneys

  1. No inventive step where the embodiment is worsened

    The mere fact that the claimed subject-matter excludes a technical feature disclosed in the closest prior art as essential or advantageous for achieving a technical effect cannot in itself establish an inventive step. Where that exclusion is the sole difference from the closest prior art, it must...

  2. Technical contribution to the invention in the presence of measurement data

    The two standards of proof traditionally relied upon by the EPO Boards of Appeal – the “balance of probabilities” and the “beyond reasonable doubt” tests – can be applied in straightforward cases. However, this binary approach may prove excessively formalistic and over-simplified in more complex...

  4. EPO-BoA: New non-medical uses of known substances

    Enlarged Board of Appeal decisions G 2/88 and G 6/88 are limited to patent claims directed to (new) non-medical uses of a known substance for a specific purpose, and not to manufacturing processes within the meaning of Article 64(2) EPC. For the (new) purpose to be read as a limiting technical feature...

  5. UPC Local Division: Substantiation

    If a party believes that a technical argument must be supported by a private expert opinion, that party must present the technical argument to the Court in a concise and comprehensible manner. Merely referring to a party’s expert report, or copying it verbatim into the submissions, is insufficient....

  6. UPC Local Division: Imminent Infringement

    Under the UPCA, the Court must independently determine the criteria that must be met for an infringement to exist. The question to be answered is whether the defendants’ conduct indicates with a high degree of probability that they intend to enter the market without further preconditions during the...

  7. UPC Local Division: Lis Pendens

    Before the application for a preliminary injunction was filed with the Local Division Düsseldorf, one of the defendants had already brought an action for a negative declaration at the national level in the Netherlands and thus requested the suspension of proceedings. This request is denied because...

  8. UPC Local Division: Competence (Multiple Defendants)

    The defendants argue that only the second defendant among the seven defendants performed acts in Germany, and therefore the Local Division Düsseldorf would lack competence with respect to the other defendants. However, under Article 33(1)(b) of the UPCA, the Local Division Düsseldorf also has competence...

  9. UPC Local Division: Assignment of Technically Qualified Judge

    The defendants request a review of the allocation of the technically qualified judge and the appointment of a new technically qualified judge with expertise in mechanical engineering. This request is rejected. There is no basis in the UPCA for the parties to propose the assignment of a judge with...

  10. UPC Local Division: Protection of Trade Secrets

    The defendants request that certain exhibits be classified as confidential. The claimant objects, arguing that the exhibits merely refute the claimant’s assertions regarding how the challenged embodiments function, without explaining how the products in dispute otherwise operate. The defendants counter...

Next page
Top