“The High Court has overturned a decision of the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) to reject a patent application as being nothing more than software. The UK-IPO said that today’s ruling is incompatible with other decisions and will appeal.”
OUT-LAW.com, 18th March 2008
Source: www.out-law.com
Cinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd
Court of Appeal
“Perjury by a witness who had common cause with one of the parties in proceedings could be sufficient to have the judgment set aside as having been obtained by fraud.”
The Times, 29th February 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Glaxo Group Ltd v Genentech Inc and Another
Court of Appeal
“The approach to a stay in European patent cases differed from a stay in ordinary commercial litigation because the possibility of parallel validity proceedings in national courts and in the European Patent Office was inherent in the legal arrangements in the European Patent Convention.”
The Times, 21st February 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“The UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) will not appeal against a High Court ruling that some computer programs can be patented. It has amended its guidance to firms on the controversial issue.”
OUT-LAW.com, 12th February 2008
Source: www.out-law.com
Glaxo Group Ltd v Genentech Inc and another [2008] EWCA Civ 23; [2008] WLR (D) 21
“The approach to a stay in European patent cases differed from a stay in ordinary commercial litigation because the possibility of parallel validity proceedings in national courts and in the European Patent Office was inherent in the legal arrangements in the Convention under which the EPO was established.”
WLR Daily, 31st January 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Cinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 9; [2008] WLR (D) 19
“Where an inventor who gave perjured evidence at the trial of his employer’s application for a patent had been more than a mere witness in those proceedings, his fraud should be treated as his employer’s fraud for the purposes of the fraud exception to the doctrine of res judicata.”
WLR Daily, 31st January 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
In re Astron Clinica Ltd and others [2008] EWHC 85 (Pat); [2008] WLR (D) 12
“Claims to computer programs were not necessarily excluded from patentability by art 52 of the Convention on the Grant of European Patents 1973. Where claims to a method performed by running a suitably programmed computer or to a computer programmed to carry out the method were allowable, then, in principle, a claim to the program itself should be allowable.”
WLR Daily, 28th January 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Some software can be patented in the UK and the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) is wrongly rejecting applications, according to a new ruling in the High Court. The UKIPO is considering appealing against the verdict.”
OUT-LAW.com, 28th January 2008
Source: www.out-law.com
In re DLP Ltd [2007] EWHC 2669 (Pat)
“It was the intention of s 74B of the Patents Act 1977 and r 77K of the Patents Rules 1995 that an appeal should lie as of right where it related to part of an opinion issued by the Comptroller, pursuant to s 74A of the Patents Act 1977, which had not been set aside by a hearing officer on review.”
WLR Daily, 20th November 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Four small technology companies will challenge recent guidance from the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) in the High Court next week. It states that few claims to computer programs for carrying out patentable methods are eligible for patenting.”
OUT-LAW.com, 13th November 2007
Source: www.out-law.com
Patent amendment is not making a different claim
Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd v Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Another
House of Lords
“When a reference was made under section 37(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1977 for joint ownership of a patent and the Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks was seised of the matter, an amendment to claim sole ownership of the patent did not amount to the making of a new or different claim.”
The Times, 30th October 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“When a reference pursuant to s 37(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1977 for joint ownership of a patent had been made and the Comptroller of Patents Designs and Trademarks was seised of the matter, an amendment so as to claim sole ownership of the patent did not amount to the making of a new or different claim which was outside the limitation period.”
WLR Daily, 24th October 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The Gowers Report on Intellectual Property recommended that the UK Intellectual Property Office provide new accelerated services for processing patent and trade mark applications. We have considered these recommendations and are now consulting on proposed new fast track services for patents and trade marks, both of which will be available to all applicants upon payment of a fee.”
Consultation Document (pdf and Word)
UK Intellectual Property Office, 21st September 2007
Source: www.ipo.gov.uk
“The US and UK patent offices have agreed to share and recognise each other’s patent examination reports under a new deal. The offices hope that the deal could save significant application time for would-be patent holders.”
OUT-LAW.com, 6th September 2007
Source: www.out-law.com
Raytheon Company v. Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2007] EWHC 1230 (Pat)
“The court had a discretion to allow the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks to raise objections on appeal that had not been maintained before a hearing officer determining whether to grant a patent.”
WLR Daily, 22nd May 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Damages for patent infringement awarded by a UK court must not be paid back even if the patent is later declared invalid by the European Patent Office (EPO), the Court of Appeal has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 9th May 2007
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2023