EPO case law: patentability of implants
A device defined by a feature which can only be generated by a surgical or therapeutic step (here: an implantable device for desynchronizing the activity of pathologically active brain areas comprising means for stimulating brain regions) is excluded from patenting under Article 53 (c) EPC. In continuation of T 775/97 (EPO BoA 15 February 2019, … >> read more
EPO case law: NDA for experts is irrelevant
The appalent’s request not to admit the declaration of an expert, since the latter is bound by an NDA and is therefore not entitled to make statements on the experiments he made, cannot be granted: In order to comply with that request, the Board of Appeal would have to examine the content and validity of … >> read more
Technicity of a method for mental acts
The decision deals with the technicity exclusively with regard to method claim 1. During the application procedure, claim 1 had been amended by including the limitation that the claimed method is used for the manufacture of a mechatronic product, which the court interprets as “any example of any other product” but not as a limitation … >> read more
EPO case law: approval of Druckexemplar not in every case irreversible
Rule 71(5) of the EPC Implementing Regulations, according to which the payment of the required fees and the filing of the required translations of the claims shall be deemed to constitute agreement with the Druckexemplar of the European patent, shall apply only if the version of the Druckexemplar in which the Examining Division intends to … >> read more
Trade Sectrets and Patent Protection
What is the relationship between trade secrets and patents? Are they mutually exclusive or do they complement each other? Do innovative companies have to decide between trade secrets and patents or is there a possibility to make use of both protection variants? Rainer Beetz deals with these questions on the occasion of the implementation of … >> read more