Luxembourg: Patent

The UPC Court of Appeal Luxembourg addresses critical questions about patent amendment admissibility, claim construction methodology, and jurisdictional boundaries in cross-border infringement cases. This decision clarifies the standard of review for patent amendments under Rule 30.1 RoP and establishes important precedent on burden of proof requirements when alleging infringement in non-UPCA member states like Poland.

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court recently issued a decision examining whether omitting an elastomeric sealing member from a patent claim constitutes added matter, applying the EPO's "gold standard" test while emphasizing the importance of functional and structural relationships between features. The ruling provides crucial insight into how the UPC approaches intermediate generalizations and whether its methodology differs from the notoriously strict EPO practice on added subject-matter.

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses the procedural requirements for obtaining suspensive effect when filing an application for rehearing under Article 81(2) UPCA. The decision clarifies that suspensive effect is not automatic and requires independent substantiation beyond the grounds for rehearing itself, with applicants needing to demonstrate concrete, irreparable prejudice to justify departure from the default rule of continued enforceability.

Intellectual property disputes can be resolved through mediation, offering faster, cheaper, and more confidential solutions than litigation. This comprehensive guide explores how organizations can maximize their chances...

The European Court of Justice has delivered a landmark ruling clarifying what constitutes "individual character" in EU design protection, addressing whether creativity and originality are necessary requirements. This decision resolves longstanding uncertainty about how design rights differ from copyright protection and whether selecting from predefined components can still qualify for intellectual property protection.

The Court of Appeal examines a request for discretionary review in a patent dispute between Optopol Technology and Topcon Corporation concerning EP 2 845 534. The case involves interpretation of procedural rules governing standing and review processes under the Unified Patent Court framework.

The yearly coming together of practitioners and thought leaders at INTA is as close to an industry touchstone for trademarks as can be imagined, for it helps to define the zeitgeist...

Whether the subject matter of the granted claim extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed is determined by considering what information...

Every patent is far more than a formality protecting your invention. It is an investment in innovation – one that demands a long-term, informed approach to generate ongoing value for your business.