IP news & updates
The latest IP news and updates from Beck Greener
IP News
The new MR claims corresponded to an auxiliary request (AR) held as not admitted by the Opposition Division (OD), but this was overturned by the Appeal Board in view of the fact that the claims’ set was identical to AR9 as filed with the opposition reply, was maintained as AR20 with the Patentees’ submission under Rule116(2) to the Summons before the OD, was evidently aimed at combating allegation of lack of inventive step and the complexity of the proceedings.
In AGA Rangemaster Group Ltd v UK Innovations Group Ltd the Court of Appeal has provided useful guidance on the limits of the trade mark exhaustion defence where genuine branded goods are refurbished and modified by an independent third party.
In the recent decision of the UK Intellectual Property Enterprise Court in No Climb Products limited v Gas Safe Europe Limited (full copy of the decision available via this link: No Climb Products Ltd v Gas Safe Europe Ltd [2026] EWHC 908 (IPEC) (22 April 2026)), the judge needed to consider infringement of a claim covering a form of apparatus for testing a gas or smoke detector requiring both a spray container and a moveable spacer member whereby the apparatus is relatively compact when not in use but a minimum distance is maintained between the spray outlet and detector when testing is underway. The defendant (‘Gas Safe’) was held to infringe a valid claim by supply of its testing product ‘DetectaReach’® consisting of an aerosol spray can and a separable spacer.
In a recent decision, the UK High Court dismissed an appeal against an earlier decision of a UKIPO hearing officer finding claims 1 and 10 of a patent to be novel and inventive.
The recently handed down judgement of the UK Supreme Court heralds a new era in the law of patent protection in the UK for Computer Implemented Inventions (CII). It is unlikely that the ultimate result of examination of UK applications will be very different once (small details like) the approach to inventive step are worked out. The way we’ll get there though will be very different. Companies and inventors in this area will need to have this in mind when applying for patents in this area.
A battle between Pelican Healthcare and Salts Healthcare in the marketing of ostomy bags has now reached the Court of Appeal (Salts Healthcare Ltd v Pelican Healthcare Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 93, 19 February 2026).
Both the Broad ‘camp’ and CVC ‘camp’ (the University of California, the University of Vienna and Emmanuelle Charpentier) have recently suffered disappointment at opposition oral proceedings before the EPO Opposition Division (OD) in relation to claims broadly encompassing use of Cas9 nucleases in eukaryotic cells. In contrast, Toolgen’s EP3346003B concerning delivery of Cas9 ribonucleoproteins (RNPs) to cleave plant cell DNA was upheld in November 2025 with reliance on a main claim merely requiring PEG-mediated delivery of a Cas9 RNP into protoplasts.
In recently issued Decision T0883/23 of EPO Appeal Board 3.3.07, the Board explained at length its decision to refuse priority entitlement for a European patent claim relating to treatment for a particular cancer. This was despite the claim wording being arguably clearly derivable from the earliest priority application (P1) with reference to a dose escalation/de-escalation study.
Recently, the written decision of EPO Appeal Board 3.3.04 appeared which upheld Sanofi’s EP2493466B covering a cancer treatment for metastatic castration – resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) despite the earliest priority date being preceded by release of information on the relevant Phase III clinical trial.
A recent Appeal Court judgment concerning the University of California European patent (UK) covering the prostate cancer drug enzalutamide and exclusively licensed to Astellas has resulted in generic versions of the drug remaining barred from entering the UK market.
The EWCA has recently provided a significant legal victory for Moderna in upholding validity of its European Patent (UK) no. 3590949 (EP949) concerning modified mRNA and thus infringement by Pfizer/BioNtech’s COVID-19 vaccine Comirnaty®
EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) decision G1/23 has clarified that a marketed product cannot be ignored as prior art on the basis that reproducibility was not possible by a person skilled in the art at the relevant date. This decision is of particular interest in relation to complex polymers and other complex products where inability of full characterisation prevents manufacture by others beyond the originator.
The Unified Patents Court has its own newly-drafted procedural rules, different from those in national courts.
The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) has issued its decision G1/24 addressing how patent claims before the EPO should be interpreted when assessing patentability and in so doing has sought to harmonise approach before the EPO with approach of the UPC.
In the recent UK High court case re Alexion’s EP (UK)3167888 [Samsung Bioepis v Alexion [2025] EWHC 1240 (Pat) , Alexion failed to overcome an error in the definition of their therapeutic antibody eculizumab - definition of the light chain of the antibody as consisting of a sequence designated as SEQ ID NO:4 but in fact specifying an extended light chain sequence with an additional 22 amino acid leader sequence.
A recent judgment from the UK courts has highlighted once again the danger for claims relating to therapeutic compounds and /or their use without actual data in the specification supporting plausibility of the asserted therapeutic utility.
Need for description amendment to align the description with allowed claims remains a much discussed EPO requirement (Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, Part F-IV-17 4.3).
The High Court has refused a patent application which it considered contrary to the laws of physics. This confirmed the position of the Intellectual Property Office.
HHJ Melissa Clarke has given useful guidance on the criteria for determining the person skilled in the art, and the relevance of this to common general knowledge and hence inventive step.
In a lengthy decision running over 693 paragraphs, Judge Leech determines the accounts of profits payable by Astronics, Panasonic, and Safran to Lufthansa following the original decision handed down in 2020 finding that the parties variously infringed Lufthansa's European (UK) patent.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Next
