Legal Updates

T1085/13: A crystal-clear test for purity

This recent decision from an EPO Board of Appeal is a rather satisfying development in how patentability (especially novelty) of purity claims is assessed at the EPO. This case may be seen as patentee-friendly, particularly for the pharmaceutical sector, as it likely extends protection for APIs. It will become especially...

Read more

Barclays test Fintech patentability at the UK IPO

There has been a lot of comment recently, including from us, about the increasing activity of financial institutions in Fintech innovation and increasing patent activity.  A recent example is from Barclays as they try to protect innovation in account set up for contactless payments. Unfortunately for Barclays, the UK IPO...

Read more

Will Landmark Graphics be a Landmark case?

We previously commented on the flexibility of the UK IPO in deciding sixteen applications concurrently. There were also a few nuggets of information in the decisions that might eventually turn into important practice points at the UK IPO, particularly the Hearing Officer’s comments on the burden of proof for refusing...

Read more

Like an experienced Yogi the UK IPO demonstrates its flexibility

When considering a patent filing strategy and deciding between a UK national application and a European application, most will consider the cost implications of each choice. One aspect of UK IPO procedures that is often overlooked is the inherent flexibility of the system. In early 2018, the UK IPO held...

Read more

An improved diagnostic tool isn’t necessarily a technical contribution

The UK IPO’s recent refusal of an application by Ventana Medical Systems sheds some light on the nuanced question of what is considered to constitute a technical contribution when applying the Aerotel test for excluded subject matter. Ventana had filed a patent application describing a way of presenting digital images...

Read more