Alert

Recommended Alerts

Sign Up For Alerts

Federal Circuit Reinvigorates “Original Patent” Requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 251 For Reissue Patents

On November 17, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Antares Pharma, Inc. v. medac Pharma Inc. and medac GmbH, ruled in favor of Ropes & Gray client Medac and breathed new life into the “original patent” requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 251 for reissue claims. Citing to Supreme Court cases dating back more than 150 years, the Federal Circuit clarified the standard for meeting the original patent requirement, finding that hints, suggestions and indications in the original patent’s specification are insufficient. Rather, the original patent’s “specification must clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed invention as a separate invention.” The decision is likely to have a significant impact on the prosecution and litigation of reissue claims.

Read More

Consultation Period for Rules of Procedure for the Unified Patent Court (UPC)

Practices: Intellectual Property

Printer-Friendly Version

On 25 June, 2013, the Preparatory Committee for the EU Unitary Patent System published its draft Rules of Procedure for the Unified Patent Court. U.S. and international companies can now comment on the rules. Read the alert to find out how. 

The Committee is now soliciting public comment through 1 October, 2013. Comments should be submitted to the following address: secretariat@unified-patent-court.org

As we have discussed previously, the new Unitary Patent Court and its Rules of Procedure will substantially influence European patent litigation strategies for plaintiffs and defendants. Certain rules will be particularly important to U.S. and international companies. These include rules related to bifurcation, stay and injunctions, opting out of UPC jurisdiction, interplay between EPO oppositions and UPC revocation, and costs of proceedings and damages.

For questions about how the new EU System and its Rules of Procedure will impact your business or how to present comments to the Committee, please contact your usual Ropes & Gray attorney or one of the following Ropes & Gray attorneys: Anita Varma, Richard McCaulley, Christopher Harnett, Edward Kelly, Charles Larsen, and Christopher Carroll.                         



Printer-Friendly Version