Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 02 DECEMBER 2024

Inventive Step Approach Confirmed In NanoString Revocation Decision

Potter Clarkson LLP
Explore more from Potter Clarkson LLP

The UPC's Central Division revoked Harvard's EP 2 794 928 B1 patent, citing lack of novelty and inventive step. It confirmed jurisdiction despite parallel German proceedings, emphasizing procedural efficiency and rejecting late-stage amendments.

United KingdomIntellectual Property
Georgia Carr
Georgia Carr
Kevin Rich
Kevin Rich
Author LinkedIn connections

The Central Division (Munich) has handed down a significant revocation decision in the ongoing patent battle between NanoString v 10x Genomics and President and Fellows of Harvard College. This follows the Court of Appeal's decision earlier in the year in relation to another (closely related) patent, in which it set aside a preliminary injunction ordered by the Munich Local Division, holding that the patent was (more likely than not) invalid - see summary here.

By way of brief background, the patent EP 2 794 928 B1 (the "Patent"), owned by President and Fellows of Harvard College, concerns spatial profiling technology, adopting an in situ method for detecting RNA. NanoString brought these proceedings before the Central Division, challenging the validity of the Patent and seeking for it to be revoked in its entirety.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

AI, Deepfakes And Image Rights: Does English Law Protect Your Face, Voice And Likeness?

Generative AI has created a legal vacuum where synthetic images and deepfakes can be created and shared without consent, yet English law offers no standalone "image right" to protect individuals. With celebrities like Lisa Riley and over 80 performers demanding reform, the question is whether the UK's patchwork of intellectual property, data protection, and common law protections can adequately address this rapidly evolving threat to personal autonomy and reputation.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Mills & Reeve LLP
Mills & Reeve LLP
Article

The Sound Of Ownership: Why AI Voice Cloning Is Raising New IP Questions

As AI voice cloning technology becomes increasingly sophisticated and accessible, the Save Our Voices Now campaign calls for statutory rights allowing individuals to own and control their voice as intellectual property. This article examines whether existing UK law sufficiently protects one of our most personal and recognisable attributes, exploring copyright, trade marks, passing off, and the practical steps individuals and businesses can take.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Ashfords LLP
Ashfords LLP
Article

High Court Clarifies The Limits Of Copyright Claims Against Online Marketplaces

The UK High Court has delivered a landmark ruling on online marketplace liability, dismissing Shein's copyright infringement claims against Temu and clarifying when platforms can be held responsible for third-party content. The judgment examines the boundaries of copyright ownership in complex supply chains and establishes important precedents for how marketplace operators should respond to infringement allegations.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
HGF Law
HGF Law
Article

Samsung Ordered To Pay The Swatch Group US$11.6 Million In Damages For Trade Mark Infringement

The High Court has awarded the Swatch Group US$11.6 million in negotiation damages against Samsung for trade mark infringements involving watch face apps on the Galaxy App store. Rejecting both parties' extreme valuations of US$170 million and US$301, the court established important principles for assessing damages when brand owners don't license their marks and no comparable market royalties exist.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Mishcon de Reya LLP
Mishcon de Reya LLP
Article

G 1/25: Description Amendments At The EPO - Business As Usual?

The Enlarged Board of Appeal has issued its decision in G 1/25, addressing a fundamental question in European patent practice: when must patent descriptions be amended to align with amended claims? This landmark ruling establishes new guidance on the relationship between claims and descriptions, building upon the interpretive framework set forth in G 1/24 and potentially reshaping how practitioners approach description amendments at the EPO.
AfghanistanIntellectual Property
Potter Clarkson LLP
Potter Clarkson LLP