Remove Confidentiality Remove Patent Remove Public Use
article thumbnail

Confidentiality restrictions around clinical trials and prior public use (T 0670/20)

The IPKat

The recent Board of Appeal decision in T 0670/20 considered whether patients in a clinical trial were under conditions of confidentiality. The patent was for a tablet formulation that had been given to patients in a clinical trial conducted before the patent had been filed. Confidentiality in clinical trials.

article thumbnail

Guest Post by Profs. Masur & Ouellette: Public Use Without the Public Using

Patently-O

What is it that makes a usepublic” for purposes of the public use bar? Does it matter whether the person doing the using is a member of the public, as opposed to the inventor? Or does it matter whether the use is itself in public, as opposed to taking place in secret behind closed doors?

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

“Prior public use”: an effective ground for opposition against the grant of a European patent

Garrigues Blog

The opposition procedure for European patents, enables third parties, within nine months of the publication of the mention of the grant of the patent, to oppose that patent at the European Patent Office (EPO). One of the most effective ways of obtaining the revocation is to prove “prior public use”.

article thumbnail

A more nuanced approach to the evidence standard for prior use (T 1311/21)

The IPKat

The case at issue concerned European patent EP2950075 , owned by Horiba Ltd, relating to an on-road running exhaust gas test apparatus. The patent claimed an apparatus for vehicle exhaust gas testing comprising an information processing unit connected to a display that could acquire and process running data during road tests.

article thumbnail

Does Displaying a Flowering Plant Preclude Patenting It?

The IP Law Blog

This month the Federal Circuit decided a case involving whether the display of a flowering plant constitutes an invalidating prior public use. Wingen LLC (“Wingen”) applied for a reissue of its utility patent for a Calibrachoa plant, called Cherry Star, which is similar to a petunia.

article thumbnail

Federal Circuit Narrows AIA Grace Period: Public Disclosure Must Make Invention ‘Reasonably Available’

Patently-O

Kaijet highlights the narrowness of the pre-filing grace period (safe harbor) provision under the America Invents Act (AIA) and serves as a reminder that there are a number of patents that would have been valid under the pre-AIA patent system may no longer be valid under the current law. Sanho Corp. 2023-1336 (Fed. July 31, 2024). .”

Invention 111
article thumbnail

The free evaluation of evidence of prior use (T 0042/19)

The IPKat

Striking the middle ground In T 0042/19 , the patent in question ( EP2846857 ) related to an injection device. The Opponent submitted evidence of alleged prior use in the form of the insulin injection pen ( GensuPen ). The Board of Appeal agreed with the OD that the prior use had not been sufficiently proven.