At a recent Forresters And Knobbe Martens Seminar, Charlotte Teall (Forresters) and Dan Altman (Knobbe Martens) presented "Latest Developments in European Patent Law: How to Apply Them in Both the United States and Europe."
Paul Conover, Curtis Huffmire and Brent Babcock recently presented at the IN3 Medical Device Summit conference in San Francisco, CA. This presentation covers: recent patent cases from the supreme court, medical device patent statistics and cases, and USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings lessons learned after two years.
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this Issue:
Cancellation of Claims by PTO Binding on District Court
Claims Reciting Method Free of an Agent is Invalid Where Patent Does Not Mention Agent
Defendant Did Not Have Proper Notice of Products Accused of Infringement
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this issue:
Licensing to Foreign Manufacturers Satisfies Domestic Industry
Appeal Found to Be Moot in Light of “Side Bet”
Mere Design Choice Leads to Obviousness Finding
Design Patent Infringement Complaint Survives Dismissal
In view of the U.S. approval process for biosimilars, companies are gearing up to either produce their own biosimilar products, or to defend against their entry onto the market. While the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) spells out many of the requirements, the pathway for approval is complicated. Our panel of experts discuss the features of the BPCIA and how it operates for both approved biologics as well as biosimilar entrants. They also make some predictions on its impact for life science companies.
The webinar is 60 minutes, complete with Q&A.
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this Issue:
• Double Patenting Applies With Distinct Inventive Entities
• Inducement Judgment Remanded in Light of Akamai
• First Sale Doctrine Applies to Sales Made Abroad
On March 14, 2013, Knobbe Martens Partner Carol Pitzel Cruz presented at the 24th C5 Forum on Biotech Patenting 2013. The presentation was titled "The Red Flags Every Patent Attorney Needs to Know to Successfully Navigate the Regulatory Landscape for Biosimilars" and Pitzel Cruz covered the U.S. law.
Her presentation analyzed the key features of the new Food and Drug Administration guidelines for American biosimilar approval under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.
Knobbe Martens' Partner Brenden Gingrich presented "Patenting the Unpatentable - Claim Drafting After Prometheus" at the IP Impact 2012 seminar in McLean, Virginia on Wednesday, May 30, 2012. The seminar was designed for corporate counsel, C-Level executives, venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, IP managers and licensing executives.
The Federal Circuit Review monthly newsletter is now available. This month’s newsletter covers the latest decisions handed down from the Federal Circuit:
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. v. Sandoz Inc.; In Re Youman; In re Montgomery; Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.; Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; In Re Baxter International, Inc.; Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.
Paul Conover, Curtis Huffmire and Brent Babcock recently presented at the IN3 Medical Device Summit conference in San Francisco, CA. This presentation covers: recent patent cases from the supreme court, medical device patent statistics and cases, and USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings lessons learned after two years.
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this Issue:
Cancellation of Claims by PTO Binding on District Court
Claims Reciting Method Free of an Agent is Invalid Where Patent Does Not Mention Agent
Defendant Did Not Have Proper Notice of Products Accused of Infringement
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this issue:
Licensing to Foreign Manufacturers Satisfies Domestic Industry
Appeal Found to Be Moot in Light of “Side Bet”
Mere Design Choice Leads to Obviousness Finding
Design Patent Infringement Complaint Survives Dismissal
In view of the U.S. approval process for biosimilars, companies are gearing up to either produce their own biosimilar products, or to defend against their entry onto the market. While the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) spells out many of the requirements, the pathway for approval is complicated. Our panel of experts discuss the features of the BPCIA and how it operates for both approved biologics as well as biosimilar entrants. They also make some predictions on its impact for life science companies.
The webinar is 60 minutes, complete with Q&A.
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this Issue:
• Double Patenting Applies With Distinct Inventive Entities
• Inducement Judgment Remanded in Light of Akamai
• First Sale Doctrine Applies to Sales Made Abroad
On March 14, 2013, Knobbe Martens Partner Carol Pitzel Cruz presented at the 24th C5 Forum on Biotech Patenting 2013. The presentation was titled "The Red Flags Every Patent Attorney Needs to Know to Successfully Navigate the Regulatory Landscape for Biosimilars" and Pitzel Cruz covered the U.S. law.
Her presentation analyzed the key features of the new Food and Drug Administration guidelines for American biosimilar approval under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.
Knobbe Martens' Partner Brenden Gingrich presented "Patenting the Unpatentable - Claim Drafting After Prometheus" at the IP Impact 2012 seminar in McLean, Virginia on Wednesday, May 30, 2012. The seminar was designed for corporate counsel, C-Level executives, venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, IP managers and licensing executives.
The Federal Circuit Review monthly newsletter is now available. This month’s newsletter covers the latest decisions handed down from the Federal Circuit:
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. v. Sandoz Inc.; In Re Youman; In re Montgomery; Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.; Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; In Re Baxter International, Inc.; Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.
On March 30 and 31, 2017, Knobbe Martens attorneys presented written and oral educational material at an IP Seminar Series “Overseas Intellectual Property Rights Protection for Chinese Enterprises” sponsored by CHOFN, a Chinese IP law firm in Guangzhou and Shenzhen, China.
Our panel of Knobbe Martens partners hosted this complimentary and informative webinar to discuss the state of software and hardware IP protection and enforcement.
Challenges to obtaining broad software and hardware IP protection are coming from every side. The Supreme Court may decide this year whether certain software even qualifies as patentable subject matter. The USPTO is also examining certain types of software applications with higher scrutiny.
Many recent decisions at the Federal Circuit have made it harder to enforce the IP that you do obtain. In addition to those difficulties, pending patent reform legislation may force a “loser pays” approach in court, where a company may have to pay millions of dollars in legal fees if they don’t win their litigation.
Our panel explained these issues, and provided real-world strategies to help maximize the protection and enforcement of your intellectual property.
The marcus evans 5th Product and Pipeline Enhancement for Generics Conference hosted industry leaders within the Generic Pharmaceutical, Branded Pharmaceutical and API industries operating globally. These leaders shared best practices, strategies and tools on portfolio management and business strategy, as well as legal, intellectual property and patent issues.
Knobbe Martens' attorneys presented on the following topic:
*Analyzing Recent Updates to the Hatch-Waxman Act to Grasp Future Impacts and Challenges
*Studying recent changes that could impact the industry, including 180-day exclusivity and complications regarding patent listings
*Drawing lessons from the close relationship between the patenting of generic products and FDA regulatory approval to pinpoint areas of improvement
*Considering the impact biosimilar products could have on market entry and patent strategies
*Reviewing both real-life rulings and hypotheticals regarding Hatch-Waxman litigation to identify future strategies
Knobbe Martens’ patent attorneys Russell Jeide and Scott Cromar hosted a seminar series on intellectual property basics for Temecula’s business community. Entrepreneurs, investors, startups, inventors and anyone interested in learning how intellectual property and patents can help their business will benefit from this presentation.
On Saturday, May 4, 2013, the Sino-American Biomedical & Pharmaceutical Professionals Association (SABPA) held its 8th Annual Biomedical Forum. The forum focused on career development, entrepreneurship and the latest innovations in pharma/biotech and medical devices industries. The biomedical forum strives to provide an attractive platform for entrepreneurs, scientists, engineers, investors, executives, and policy makers to promote life sciences, biotech, medical device and alliances across the biomedical industry in Southern California and Asian countries. Knobbe Martens Partner Terry Tullis presented on “Commercialization and Patent Infringement.”
The Trademark Review is a monthly newsletter prepared by Knobbe Martens attorneys covering relevant and current issues in trademark law.
In this Issue:
• Ron Paul’s Complaint to Regain RonPaul.org Constitutes Reverse Domain Hijacking
• MOTT’s for Baby Food Is Considered Primarily Merely a Surname
• Company Uses More than Is Reasonably Necessary to Advertise that its Test Strips Work with Another’s Meters
Partner Agnes Juang, Ph.D. presented "Navigating the Patent Minefield" at SABPA's 9th Annual Biomedical Forum on Saturday, April 26, at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Costa Mesa.
The event showcased a number of experts across the pharmaceutical, medical device, and diagnostics industries.
Partner Michael Fuller wrote an article for the Bloomberg BNA - Pharmaceutical Law & Industry Report discussing how the PTAB may be taking a more balanced approach in biotech and pharmaceutical IPRs.
Knobbe Martens hosted a Pre-Conference Workshop on Monday, October 15, 2012, at the IN3 Medical Device Summit in San Francisco. Knobbe Partners Paul Conover, Curtis Huffmire, and Karen Vogel Weil presented a “Patent Update for Medical Device Companies.” This forum took place in the hub of device investment and innovation in the San Francisco Bay Area, and brought together a diverse group of medtech’s key thought leaders to candidly discuss the critical issues that will define the future of all players in the evolving device space.
The second breakout session was directed to attendees in the information technology (IT) and biotechnology sectors, with discussion about the recent Alice v. CLS Bank Supreme Court decision.
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this Issue:
Smartphone War Update: Some of Apple’s Patents Survive Invalidity Challenge
• Sale by Foreign Supplier Invalidated Patent
• District Court Abused Discretion in Refusing to Keep Confidential Documents Secret
Partner Michael Guiliana presented on "Best Practices for Employee, Contractor and Consulting Agreements" at the Association of Corporate Counsel - Southern California Chapter "DoubleHeader" event.
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this issue:
Doctrine of Equivalents: What Constitutes a Disclosed but not Claimed Equivalent?
When “Each” Means “Every”: Apple Loses a Round in Its Ongoing Battle with Samsung
Capturing Advances in Technology Under the Doctrine of Equivalents
Is a “Height Adjustment Mechanism” a Definite Structure, or a Means-Plus- Function?
PTO Invalidity Ruling Stands Despite Prior Court Ruling of No Invalidity
Patent Law in 2014: Act fast or get left behindsteve_ritchey
A presentation on patent law fundamentals, the changes caused resulting from the America Invents Act, other topical patent law issues such as new developments on patentable subject matter, appellate review of claim constructions, and best practices
On March 30 and 31, 2017, Knobbe Martens attorneys presented written and oral educational material at an IP Seminar Series “Overseas Intellectual Property Rights Protection for Chinese Enterprises” sponsored by CHOFN, a Chinese IP law firm in Guangzhou and Shenzhen, China.
Our panel of Knobbe Martens partners hosted this complimentary and informative webinar to discuss the state of software and hardware IP protection and enforcement.
Challenges to obtaining broad software and hardware IP protection are coming from every side. The Supreme Court may decide this year whether certain software even qualifies as patentable subject matter. The USPTO is also examining certain types of software applications with higher scrutiny.
Many recent decisions at the Federal Circuit have made it harder to enforce the IP that you do obtain. In addition to those difficulties, pending patent reform legislation may force a “loser pays” approach in court, where a company may have to pay millions of dollars in legal fees if they don’t win their litigation.
Our panel explained these issues, and provided real-world strategies to help maximize the protection and enforcement of your intellectual property.
The marcus evans 5th Product and Pipeline Enhancement for Generics Conference hosted industry leaders within the Generic Pharmaceutical, Branded Pharmaceutical and API industries operating globally. These leaders shared best practices, strategies and tools on portfolio management and business strategy, as well as legal, intellectual property and patent issues.
Knobbe Martens' attorneys presented on the following topic:
*Analyzing Recent Updates to the Hatch-Waxman Act to Grasp Future Impacts and Challenges
*Studying recent changes that could impact the industry, including 180-day exclusivity and complications regarding patent listings
*Drawing lessons from the close relationship between the patenting of generic products and FDA regulatory approval to pinpoint areas of improvement
*Considering the impact biosimilar products could have on market entry and patent strategies
*Reviewing both real-life rulings and hypotheticals regarding Hatch-Waxman litigation to identify future strategies
Knobbe Martens’ patent attorneys Russell Jeide and Scott Cromar hosted a seminar series on intellectual property basics for Temecula’s business community. Entrepreneurs, investors, startups, inventors and anyone interested in learning how intellectual property and patents can help their business will benefit from this presentation.
On Saturday, May 4, 2013, the Sino-American Biomedical & Pharmaceutical Professionals Association (SABPA) held its 8th Annual Biomedical Forum. The forum focused on career development, entrepreneurship and the latest innovations in pharma/biotech and medical devices industries. The biomedical forum strives to provide an attractive platform for entrepreneurs, scientists, engineers, investors, executives, and policy makers to promote life sciences, biotech, medical device and alliances across the biomedical industry in Southern California and Asian countries. Knobbe Martens Partner Terry Tullis presented on “Commercialization and Patent Infringement.”
The Trademark Review is a monthly newsletter prepared by Knobbe Martens attorneys covering relevant and current issues in trademark law.
In this Issue:
• Ron Paul’s Complaint to Regain RonPaul.org Constitutes Reverse Domain Hijacking
• MOTT’s for Baby Food Is Considered Primarily Merely a Surname
• Company Uses More than Is Reasonably Necessary to Advertise that its Test Strips Work with Another’s Meters
Partner Agnes Juang, Ph.D. presented "Navigating the Patent Minefield" at SABPA's 9th Annual Biomedical Forum on Saturday, April 26, at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Costa Mesa.
The event showcased a number of experts across the pharmaceutical, medical device, and diagnostics industries.
Partner Michael Fuller wrote an article for the Bloomberg BNA - Pharmaceutical Law & Industry Report discussing how the PTAB may be taking a more balanced approach in biotech and pharmaceutical IPRs.
Knobbe Martens hosted a Pre-Conference Workshop on Monday, October 15, 2012, at the IN3 Medical Device Summit in San Francisco. Knobbe Partners Paul Conover, Curtis Huffmire, and Karen Vogel Weil presented a “Patent Update for Medical Device Companies.” This forum took place in the hub of device investment and innovation in the San Francisco Bay Area, and brought together a diverse group of medtech’s key thought leaders to candidly discuss the critical issues that will define the future of all players in the evolving device space.
The second breakout session was directed to attendees in the information technology (IT) and biotechnology sectors, with discussion about the recent Alice v. CLS Bank Supreme Court decision.
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this Issue:
Smartphone War Update: Some of Apple’s Patents Survive Invalidity Challenge
• Sale by Foreign Supplier Invalidated Patent
• District Court Abused Discretion in Refusing to Keep Confidential Documents Secret
Partner Michael Guiliana presented on "Best Practices for Employee, Contractor and Consulting Agreements" at the Association of Corporate Counsel - Southern California Chapter "DoubleHeader" event.
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this issue:
Doctrine of Equivalents: What Constitutes a Disclosed but not Claimed Equivalent?
When “Each” Means “Every”: Apple Loses a Round in Its Ongoing Battle with Samsung
Capturing Advances in Technology Under the Doctrine of Equivalents
Is a “Height Adjustment Mechanism” a Definite Structure, or a Means-Plus- Function?
PTO Invalidity Ruling Stands Despite Prior Court Ruling of No Invalidity
Patent Law in 2014: Act fast or get left behindsteve_ritchey
A presentation on patent law fundamentals, the changes caused resulting from the America Invents Act, other topical patent law issues such as new developments on patentable subject matter, appellate review of claim constructions, and best practices
Knobbe Martens co-hosted a 2-hour seminar in Orange County on Protecting Your Intellectual Property with a distinguished panel of global patent practitioners.
The ongoing implementation of elements of the America Invents Act represents the biggest changes to US patent code in generations. The impact of such sweeping changes to the US patent systems will be exceptionally significant for life sciences companies whose life blood is dependent on the value of their intellectual property and patents. This is the only event where you will have the opportunity to join your colleagues in an advanced think-tank discussion regarding the practical impact of patent reform on the life sciences industry.
Attorney Mauricio Uribe, Michael Guiliana and Of Counsel Hironori Kubota present a Webinar focusing on strategic considerations for patent prosecution in the United States in view of the statutory requirements of Section 103. Leveraging years of focused prosecution practice, Knobbe Martens practitioners will provide insights related to the statutory requirements and best practices for effective prosecution.
This document explains the issues associated with obtaining software patent authorization by the United States Patent and Trademark Office as a result of the SCOTUS decision in Alice Corporation versus CLS Bank International.
Attorneys Mauricio Uribe, Eric Forman and Vlad Teplitskiy present a Webinar focusing on strategic considerations for patent prosecution in the United States in view of the statutory requirements of Section 103.
Patents on Software and Business Methods: Have the Rules Changed?Karl Larson
The standard for patentable subject matter under Bilski is a “machine-or-transformation test,” which restricts patenting to inventions that are either tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or that transform a particular article into a different state or thing.
Partner Ben Anger discusses the latest developments and advanced strategies for PTAB practice, specifically focused on the petitioner side. Ben covers issues related to selecting the prior art, anticipation versus single-reference obviousness, motivation to combine, post-institution practice, and more.
Partners Susan Natland and Jessica Sganga discussed potential trademark and copyright issues in the emerging metaverse, including the surge in popularity of NFTs (non-fungible tokens) and how they may affect intellectual property protections. Get up-to-speed on the “hot” cases in this evolving area and get practical tips on how best to protect your intellectual property from infringement in this virtual space.
Speakers: Susan Natland, Jessica Sganga
Knobbe partners Jeff Van Hoosear (OC) Jason Jardine (SD) and associate Julia Hanson (SD) recently gave a presentation at San Diego Fashion week on intellectual property for designers and artists. The presentation explored what IP is, why it is important to designers, top 5 misconceptions, how to get a copyright, how to get a trademark and how to get a design patent.
Partner Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion on responding to IP threats and assertions. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic and strategic implications for various scenarios.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
Partners Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion on responding to IP threats and assertions. The presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe
Partner Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion on open-source software and third-party vendors. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic and strategic implications for various scenarios.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
Partner Jason Gersting, Ph.D. moderated a panel of his peers in a discussion about learning how to identify the waves in current written description and enablement law and tips for smoothly riding them to expand, enhance and protect life sciences intellectual property rights. Panelists included Knobbe Martens partners Jessica Achtsam, Eric Furman, Ph.D., and Dan Altman.
Partner Mauricio Uribe kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion on open-source software and third-party vendors. The presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
Partner Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion on data privacy. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic and strategic implications for various scenarios .
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
Partner Mauricio Uribe kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion on data privacy. The presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
Partners Mauricio Uribe and Vlad Lozan gave an informative presentation on design patent law in the United States. The partners provided best practices for filing and prosecuting design patents in the U.S. and techniques and strategies for including multiple design embodiments in design patent applications. They also discussed how to identify and protect visual elements in computer-related technologies and how to integrate design patents into a holistic intellectual property strategy.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe, Vlad Lozan
Partners Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion on trade secrets. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic and strategic implications for various scenarios .
Speakers: Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe
Partners Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion on trade secrets. The presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe
Partners Mauricio Uribe and Paul Stellman continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion of strategic planning for capturing and protecting intellectual property. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic, diving into the best intellectual property portfolios and cost deferrable strategies to maximize intellectual property spend.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe and Paul Stellmann
Partners Mauricio Uribe and Vlad Teplitskiy gave an informative presentation on strategic considerations for claim drafting electrical and telecommunications Inventions. The partners provided illustrative claim drafting examples and best practices for defining claim scope, as well as claim drafting strategies for avoiding or minimizing unintentional functional claiming.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe, Vlad Teplitskiy
Partners Maria Stout and Paul Stellman kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion of strategic planning for capturing and protecting intellectual property. The presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Maria Stout and Paul Stellmann
Partners Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion of strategic considerations regarding employment and vendor agreements. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of managing employment and vendor agreements, follow-on agreements, and sample language and practical examples.
Speakers: Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe
Partners Melanie Seelig and Maria Stout kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion of strategic intellectual property considerations regarding employment and vendor agreements. This presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Melanie Seelig and Maria Stout
Knobbe Practice Japan Webinar Series
Partner Mauricio Uribe provided a detailed discussion focused on advanced patent claim drafting techniques for artificial intelligence technologies and related applications. The discussion covered: claim drafting techniques to capture different aspects of artificial intelligence/machine learning technologies; considerations for detecting infringement and possible alternative trade secret protection in the United States; and considerations for patent subject matter eligibility under Section 101.
This was the second and more advanced part of the webinar on understanding and protecting artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies. If you missed the introductory webinar on this topic, you can view the recording here.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe and Kenny Masaki
More from Knobbe Martens - Intellectual Property Law (20)
WINDING UP of COMPANY, Modes of DissolutionKHURRAMWALI
Winding up, also known as liquidation, refers to the legal and financial process of dissolving a company. It involves ceasing operations, selling assets, settling debts, and ultimately removing the company from the official business registry.
Here's a breakdown of the key aspects of winding up:
Reasons for Winding Up:
Insolvency: This is the most common reason, where the company cannot pay its debts. Creditors may initiate a compulsory winding up to recover their dues.
Voluntary Closure: The owners may decide to close the company due to reasons like reaching business goals, facing losses, or merging with another company.
Deadlock: If shareholders or directors cannot agree on how to run the company, a court may order a winding up.
Types of Winding Up:
Voluntary Winding Up: This is initiated by the company's shareholders through a resolution passed by a majority vote. There are two main types:
Members' Voluntary Winding Up: The company is solvent (has enough assets to pay off its debts) and shareholders will receive any remaining assets after debts are settled.
Creditors' Voluntary Winding Up: The company is insolvent and creditors will be prioritized in receiving payment from the sale of assets.
Compulsory Winding Up: This is initiated by a court order, typically at the request of creditors, government agencies, or even by the company itself if it's insolvent.
Process of Winding Up:
Appointment of Liquidator: A qualified professional is appointed to oversee the winding-up process. They are responsible for selling assets, paying off debts, and distributing any remaining funds.
Cease Trading: The company stops its regular business operations.
Notification of Creditors: Creditors are informed about the winding up and invited to submit their claims.
Sale of Assets: The company's assets are sold to generate cash to pay off creditors.
Payment of Debts: Creditors are paid according to a set order of priority, with secured creditors receiving payment before unsecured creditors.
Distribution to Shareholders: If there are any remaining funds after all debts are settled, they are distributed to shareholders according to their ownership stake.
Dissolution: Once all claims are settled and distributions made, the company is officially dissolved and removed from the business register.
Impact of Winding Up:
Employees: Employees will likely lose their jobs during the winding-up process.
Creditors: Creditors may not recover their debts in full, especially if the company is insolvent.
Shareholders: Shareholders may not receive any payout if the company's debts exceed its assets.
Winding up is a complex legal and financial process that can have significant consequences for all parties involved. It's important to seek professional legal and financial advice when considering winding up a company.
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
How to Obtain Permanent Residency in the NetherlandsBridgeWest.eu
You can rely on our assistance if you are ready to apply for permanent residency. Find out more at: https://immigration-netherlands.com/obtain-a-permanent-residence-permit-in-the-netherlands/.
1. Latest Developments in European Patent Law:
How to Apply Them in Both the United States and Europe
August 15, 2017
Galileo Conference Room
Knobbe Martens - San Francisco
Charlotte Teall (Forresters) + Dan Altman (Knobbe Martens)
4. www.forresters.co.uk
Lilly v Actavis [2017] UKSC 48
• 12 July decision from UK Supreme Court
• Change in approach to assessing whether immaterial variants can be
considered to fall within the scope of a patent claim (direct infringement)
• Change in approach to use of prosecution file history during later
proceedings
5. www.forresters.co.uk
Background
• Eli Lilly patent relates to the use of pemetrexed disodium in the
manufacture of a medicament for use in combination with vitamin B12
(and, optionally, folic acid) for the treatment of cancer
• Actavis produced a treatment including either pemetrexed diacid or a
different pemetrexed salt
• First instance - no direct or indirect infringement
• Court of appeal - indirect infringement, but agreed no direct infringement
• Appeals filed by both sides
6. www.forresters.co.uk
Protocol on interpretation of Article 69 EPC
Article 1:
“Article 69 should not be interpreted as meaning that the extent of the
protection conferred by a European patent is to be understood as that
defined by the strict, literal meaning of the wording used in the claims,
the description and drawings being employed only for the purpose of
resolving an ambiguity found in the claims. Nor should it be taken to mean
that the claims serve only as a guideline and that the actual protection
conferred may extend to what, from a consideration of the description and
drawings by a person skilled in the art, the patent proprietor has
contemplated. On the contrary, it is to be interpreted as defining a position
between these extremes which combines a fair protection for the patent
proprietor with a reasonable degree of legal certainty for third parties.”
7. www.forresters.co.uk
Protocol on interpretation of Article 69 EPC
Article 2 - Equivalents
“For the purpose of determining the extent of protection conferred by a
European patent, due account shall be taken of any element which is
equivalent to an element specified in the claims.”
• Claim must be properly interpreted:
1. The description and claims can be taken into account
2. The scope of the claim may extend beyond the literal meaning of
the claims
3. An equivalent or immaterial variant may be covered where this falls
outside the scope of the claim (as properly interpreted)
8. www.forresters.co.uk
Previous infringement test
• Catnic, Kirin Amgen and Improver rejected
• Catnic (1982) – it was obvious that “extending vertically” could not have
been intended to exclude lintels in which the back plate … was close
enough to 90º to make no material difference to the way the lintel
worked.
9. www.forresters.co.uk
Previous infringement test
• Improver Questions (1990):
1. Does the variant have a material effect upon the way the invention
works? If yes, the variant is outside the claim. If no –
2. Would this (i.e. that the variant had no material effect) have been
obvious at the date of publication of the patent to a reader skilled in
the art? If no, the variant is outside the claim. If yes –
3. Would the reader skilled in the art nevertheless have understood
from the language of the claim that the patentee intended that strict
compliance with the primary meaning was an essential requirement
of the invention? If yes, the variant is outside the claim
10. www.forresters.co.uk
Previous infringement test
• Improver – claim to “helical metal spring” infringed by slotted rubber rod
• Kirin Amgen (2005) - “purposive construction” – what would skilled
person have understood patentee to be using the language of the claim
to mean?
• No infringement of claim to production of EPO by recombinant DNA
technology
• Did not rule out/supersede Improver Questions
11. www.forresters.co.uk
Updated infringement test
1. Does the item infringe any of the claims as a matter of normal
interpretation?
If yes – direct infringement
If no – go to qu.2
2. Although the item may be characterised as a variant, does it
nonetheless infringe because it varies from the invention in a way
which is immaterial?
If yes – direct infringement
If no – no direct infringement
12. www.forresters.co.uk
Comments on the updated test
• Separate tests:
– Qu 1 – matter of interpretation
– Qu 2 – not only matter of interpretation, but also determination of extent of
the scope of protection
• Qu 2 concerning assessment of immaterial variants - reformulated
Improver questions for chemical-type cases
• Guidelines (not strict rules) for assessing immaterial variants
13. www.forresters.co.uk
Reformulated Improver Questions
• Original question 1:
– Does the variant have a material effect upon the way the invention
works?
• Reformulated question 1:
– Notwithstanding that it is not within the literal meaning of the relevant
claim(s) of the patent, does the variant achieve substantially the
same result in substantially the same way as the invention, i.e. the
inventive concept revealed by the patent?
If yes, go to Qu 2
If no – no direct infringement
15. www.forresters.co.uk
Reformulated Question 2
• Original question 2:
– Would this (i.e. that the variant had no material effect) have been
obvious at the date of publication of the patent to a reader skilled in
the art?
• Reformulated question:
– Would it be obvious to the person skilled in the art, reading the
patent at the priority date, but knowing that the variant achieves
substantially the same result as the invention, that it does so in
substantially the same way as the invention?
If yes, go to Qu 3
If no – no direct infringement
16. www.forresters.co.uk
Question 2 changes
• Biggest change
• For chemical cases, the previous version did not work well
• The result of substituting one chemical for another is often not at all
obvious to the skilled person
• Would need to try it in order to find out what the result is
• Reworded to assume variant does achieve the same result in the same
way - new starting point for assessment
• Also applies to variants not known at priority date
17. www.forresters.co.uk
Question 2 changes
• Effect of this is likely to increase the scope of what can be caught as a
variant
• Variants which do work in the same way, but where it would not have
been obvious that they work in the same way at priority/publication date,
might not have been caught before, but are more likely to be caught now
• Expressed as a reformulation for chemical cases, but it could have
application for mechanical cases
18. www.forresters.co.uk
New Question 3
• Original question 3:
– Would the reader skilled in the art nevertheless have understood
from the language of the claim that the patentee intended that strict
compliance with the primary meaning was an essential requirement
of the invention?
• Reformulated question:
– Would such a reader of the patent have concluded that the patentee
nonetheless intended that strict compliance with the literal meaning
of the relevant scope of the relevant claim(s) of the patent was an
essential requirement of the invention?
If no – direct infringement
19. www.forresters.co.uk
Question 3 changes
• No real change to question 3
• Except to clarify that too much weight should not be placed on words of
claims
• Scope of protection rather than claim interpretation important
20. www.forresters.co.uk
Summary
• In summary:
– Two stages of assessment, i.e. interpretation and considering
immaterial variants, need to be kept separate
– No change to the approach on interpretation
– Some reformulation of the Improver questions, particularly question
2
• Some commentators heralding a revolution
• “Now we have equivalents!”
• In practice, likely to be much less dramatic than that
21. www.forresters.co.uk
Application to this case
• Falls into “is this an immaterial variant?” category
– Qu 1 – yes – inventive concept – manufacturing method enabling
pemetrexed anion to be administered with vitamin B12
– Qu 2 – yes – obvious at priority date that these do so in substantially the
same way as the invention
• Old Qu 2- perhaps not – preparation of other salt forms not a predictable exercise
– Qu 3 – no – v.unlikely skilled person would have concluded that patentee
was intending to specifically exclude certain equivalents (used in the Actavis
products) from the scope of protection by the wording of the claim. Spec did
not teach essentiality of disodium salt
• RESULT = Actavis products directly infringe Eli Lilly's patent in the UK
(France, Italy and Spain)
• Obiter – CofA was correct about indirect infringement
22. www.forresters.co.uk
Practice points – drafting and clarity
• “The point at issue is truly unclear if one confines oneself to the
specification and claims of the patent, and the contents of the file
unambiguously resolve the point”
• Try and make your claims clear!
• When framing a description, avoid passages which seem to state that a
narrow example or embodiment is essential, or wildly preferred over
others, or the only thing that really works
– But balance with sufficiency and inventive step
• Biotech/chem inventions – seemingly cannot now rely on lack of
predictability in arguing variant not obvious (see Qu 2)
23. www.forresters.co.uk
Additional practice points
• Patentees could claw back some claim scope after strict EPO added
matter approach
– No basis for broader claim, but scope extends to cover
• Key to distinguish between disclosure of patent specification and scope
of protection provided by the claims
• Previous FTOs where it was determined that it would not have been
obvious that an potentially infringing variant works in the same way at
priority/publication date (but it does in fact work in the same way) should
be re-visited
• Future FTOs will need to take this into account
24. www.forresters.co.uk
Use of prosecution history
Previous approach:
• Prosecution history not generally referred to or relied upon
• Re-inforced in Kirin-Amgen judgement, which stated:
• Meaning of patent should not change according to whether skilled
person has access to the file
• The judgement departs from previous practice:
• May be occasions when justice may fairly be said to require reference to
contents of the file history to determine scope of protection, but must be
limited
25. www.forresters.co.uk
New approach - prosecution file can be considered
• Prosecution file can be considered where:
1. The point at issue is truly unclear if one confines oneself to the
specification and claims of the patent, and the contents of the file
unambiguously resolve the point; or
2. It would be contrary to the public interest for the contents of the file
to be ignored
– E.g. where applicant had made it clear to the EPO that he was not
seeking to contend that the patent would, if granted, cover this
variant
• Sceptical but not absolutist approach
26. www.forresters.co.uk
Practice points
• On the facts of this case, judge held these 2 requirements were not met
• EPO practitioners already acutely aware of US prosecution history
estoppel – now more important to ensure we do not (unless it is
unavoidable) make any kind of statement that even vaguely implies that
we do not intend the claims/resulting patent to cover something
• Other than this, practice shouldn’t change greatly
• Should not be afraid of making the usual kind of arguments about
patentability that we routinely make at the moment
27. www.forresters.co.uk
Additional practice points
• In practice, it seems that courts will not refer to the prosecution file often
• However, now we have a judgement saying that the file can be
considered - we can expect this argument to be run
• Attacking others’ patents:
– Gives another line of attack - can try to use EPO/IPO prosecution
history when considering infringement, or preparing observations on
validity
– For an effective argument, probably need a real lack of clarity in the
granted claims, or a reckless statement that the claims are not
intended to cover something
28. www.forresters.co.uk
Conclusions
• Supreme court cases dealing with interpretation are usually few and far
between
• We can expect this decision to set the standard for a while to come
• This case is not (in my opinion) a revolution, but it leads to changes in
practice and approach that we need to bear in mind
35. www.forresters.co.uk
Plausibility – Dasatinib – T0488/16
• Dasatinib has the following structure:
• Developed by Bristol-Myers Squibb – marketed at Sprycel®
• Approved for treating chronic myelogenous leukaemia (CML) and
Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+
ALL) – being evaluated in other cancers
37. www.forresters.co.uk
Plausibility – Dasatinib – T0488/16
• Patent revoked (in full) before OD on 20 January 2016
– Medical use claims – T609/02 - lack of sufficiency
– Product per se claims – T1329/04 - lack of inventive step
• Patentee appealed revocation
• BoA dismissed appeal in their decision of 1 February 2017- decision
issued July 2017
• https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t160488eu1.pdf
39. www.forresters.co.uk
Data in the application as filed
Classic NCE case – 100s of characterised compounds
One was dasatinib, although not singled out in the many compounds
disclosed (or stated to be particularly advantageous)
Example 455, page 157 of the PCT application:
2717 refers to HPLC retention time
40. www.forresters.co.uk
Data in the application as filed
• Application stated compounds of invention inhibit protein tyrosine
kinases and are thus useful in treatment of PTK-associated disorders
such as immunologic and oncologic disorders
• Included details of assays for protein tyrosine kinase (PTK) inhibition
• And statements that experiments had been done and that the activity of
the compounds of the invention (i.e. including dasatinib) had been
established
• But no actual experimental data or numerical data for PTK inhibition
41. www.forresters.co.uk
1. OD - Sufficiency of medical use claims
• T609/02
• Application must show that claimed compound has direct effect on a
metabolic mechanism specifically involved in the disease, this
mechanism being either known from the prior art or demonstrated in the
application per se
• Otherwise patent would be granted for technical teaching made after
filing date
• Technical contribution at filing date
• Only then can post-published evidence be taken into account
42. www.forresters.co.uk
1. Sufficiency of medical use claims - Applying T 609/02
• OD - “enormous number of compounds” falling within broad general
formula – no pharmacophore identifiable
• OD - not plausible at filing date - because not credible all compounds in
general formula inhibit PTK
• Post-published data could not be used [also data did not show that all
family members inhibit the PTK family – casts doubt]
• Skilled person must carry out research program to find which
compounds inhibit the PTK family
RESULT = Second medical use claims insufficient
43. www.forresters.co.uk
2. BoA - Inventive step of compound per se claims
• Compound is novel
• Cited prior art did not disclose any compounds that were structurally
similar to dasatinib
• No issue under sufficiency because Example 455 says how to make
the compound
• Issue comes with inventive step…
44. www.forresters.co.uk
Problem and Solution Approach: Overview
Step 1
• Identify the closest piece of prior art (PA)
– ID differences between the closest PA and the claimed invention
– ID the technical effect of these differences
Step 2
• Establish objective technical problem to be solved base on technical effect
Step 3
• Assess whether in the light of the objective technical problem, the prior art
would (not merely could) prompt the skilled person in the direction of the
invention… with a reasonable expectation of success
45. www.forresters.co.uk
Problem and Solution Approach: A 4th Step
• There is a 4th step
• Comes once objective technical problem has been defined:
– Is it plausible - from the application as filed only - that the objective
technical problem has actually been solved by the claimed
invention?
• If not:
– Fall at first hurdle! (see T1329/04) – no data in application at all
46. www.forresters.co.uk
T1329/04
“The definition of an invention as being a contribution to the art, i.e. as
solving a technical problem and not merely putting forward one, requires
that it is at least made plausible by the disclosure in the application that
its teaching solves indeed the problem it purports to solve.
Therefore, even if supplementary post-published evidence may in the
proper circumstances also be taken into consideration, it may not serve as
the sole basis to establish that the application solves indeed the problem it
purports to solve”
T1329/04: Headnote
47. www.forresters.co.uk
Question to be answered
• Main question – does application as filed make a plausible and
credible disclosure of the claimed invention (i.e. technical effect
under-pinning non-obviousness)?
48. www.forresters.co.uk
Patentee’s arguments
• Statements in application - sufficient to meet the low plausibility
threshold, which was satisfied in the absence of any substantiated
doubts
• T578/06 - absolute proof in the form of data not required in the
application and EPC does not require data
• Since threshold met, post-published evidence merely confirmed the
teachings that dasatinib has PTK-inhibitory activity
• Objection technical problem - provision of an improved PTK inhibitor
• Prior art structurally v.different and no hint of technical effect
49. www.forresters.co.uk
BoA’s findings
• Even for product per se claim - needs to be more than alternative
chemical compound – PTK-inhibiting activity has to be plausible
• Dasatinib not singled out in the application as being of particular
interest, nor was there any relevant data provided for this compound
• Skilled person would not expect all disclosed compounds to be active
against all kinases – absence of verifiable data concerning technical
effect means not plausible, so post-published data dismissed
– Did not help that some pp data did not work
• Broad teachings of compounds and targets give rise to a substantiated
doubt that all would work for all targets disclosed
– Even for claim limited to single, specific compound
50. www.forresters.co.uk
BoA’s findings - 2
• In the absence of verifiable technical evidence, statement in the
application not sufficient to establish plausibility:
“Compounds described in the following Examples have been tested in one
or more of these assays, and have shown activity”.
• Broad, generic disclosure covering many compounds with a vague
indication of “activity” against PTKs amounts to invitation to perform
research project
• PTK-inhibiting activity not plausible from application as filed
51. www.forresters.co.uk
BoA’s findings - 3
• 2 expert declarations & inventor declaration filed - useful
pharmacophore could be identified from exemplified compounds
• Dismissed by BoA - no structure-activity relationships could be drawn
due to complete absence of any data
• Inventor’s declaration irrelevant as it concerned information only
available to BMS. Although it referred to results obtained before the
filing date, these results were not present in application and not
provided to EPO during the examination
52. www.forresters.co.uk
BoA’s findings - 4
• Objective technical problem not plausibly solved because no evidence
in application showing technical effect going beyond speculation – post-
filed data can’t cure this
• Objective technical problem should be formulated in a less ambitious
way:
provision of improved alternative low molecular weight
compounds
• Narrow claim lacks IS - mere provision of NCE without showing any
technical effect - arbitrary choice which does not require inventive
ingenuity
53. www.forresters.co.uk
Practice points
• Plausibility threshold slightly raised? “verifiable evidence” should be
present in application as filed
• In pharma cases, safest to include some data - in vitro or in vivo. Data
should make it plausible that the compounds have a therapeutic effect
• Data not always required - technical effect must be self-evident,
predictable or based on a conclusive theoretical concept – e.g. CGK or
explanation in application concerning structure-function relationships
• Consider parallel national applications for particularly important
technologies where minimal data is available at filing date
54. www.forresters.co.uk
Practice points - 2
• DRAFTING - Dasatinib case appears to have fallen because initial
disclosure very broad in terms of compounds and targets
• 4.16.3 BoA referring to Actavis v Eli Lilly [2015] EWHC 3294:
• "Generally, it is likely to be easier, as a matter of fact, to show plausibility for a claim of narrow scope,
for example a single drug for a single disease, than for a claim of wide scope, for example a class of
drugs for multiple diseases". This statement has to be seen in the context of the case underlying the UK
High Court decision, which was concerned with the use of tomoxetine in the treatment of attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder, i. e. a single use for a single disease. In the present case, the
application as filed was concerned with an extremely broadly defined group of compounds for a
plethora of disorders based on the inhibition of different types of PTKs associated with the treatment of
different diseases or disorders. This is a completely different situation, irrespective of the fact that the
present main request is now limited to a single compound.” [Emphasis added]
55. www.forresters.co.uk
Practice points - 3
• Safest to include sub-groups e.g. pharmacophores and have
data/structure-function relationship in the application
• If referring to tests done but not disclosed:
• be specific about which compounds and targets.
• include detail on results and parameters used e.g. 10-fold
increase over other named prior art compounds at specified
concentration
• Make sure post-published data is consistent with teachings
56. www.forresters.co.uk
Other cases in this area – threshold met
• T1677/11, T1642/07 and T210/11 – no data but CGK and/or technical
explanation in patent gave no substantiated doubts
• T716/08 – screening examples in combo with CGK
• T1336/04 & T604/04 - structural similarity to known members of a
particular family
• T433/05 & T108/09 – at least a plausible theoretical concept
• T433/05 - improving in vivo stability of known peptides via coupling to a
long living blood component
• T108/09 - use of a known second-line agent in treatment of breast
cancer as third-line agent for same disease – app contained protocol for
clinical trial but not its results
57. www.forresters.co.uk
Plausibility threshold – compounds per se
• No data or verifiable evidence & no structure-activity link (CGK or in
app)
– T1329/04, T0488/16
THRESHOLD LIMIT
• No data but CGK and/or convincing technical explanation in app
• In vitro data for invention claimed & technical explanation for broadening
of claim (THRESHOLD here for medical use claims)
• In vitro data for all claimed embodiments
58. www.forresters.co.uk
UK – Warner Lambert v Generics & Actavis
• Medical use – pregabalin for treating pain
– Includes central neuropathic and peripheral neuropathic pain
– Experimental models used could not measure effects CNS
– Not plausible that pregabalin would be effective for all types of pain
RESULT = claims invalid for lack of sufficiency
• 2 types of insufficiency:
– “Classical insufficiency” – failure to enable invention to be performed
without undue burden
– “Biogen insufficiency” – failure to enable invention to be performed
over whole scope of claim
59. www.forresters.co.uk
UK – Warner Lambert v Generics & Actavis
Principles:
• Mere assertion compound X suitable for treating disease Y not sufficient
• Eg of adequate support – experimental tests showing claimed
compound has direct effect on a metabolic mechanism involved in the
disease
• Post-published data not admissible if it alone renders invention plausible
• Sufficiency requires placing reader in possession of invention without
imposing undue burden by way of further research
• FR, SE & SE decisions in favour of WL
• Heading for Supreme Court
67. Orange County San Diego San Francisco Silicon ValleyLos Angeles Seattle Washington DCNew York
Charlotte Teall cteall@forresters.co.uk
Dan Altman dan.altman@knobbe.com