Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 29 JUNE 2010

IP Snapshot - June 2010

CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang
Explore more from CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang

The EPO Board of Appeal (BoA) rejected claims to functionally defined chemical compounds, which were to be identified via a new research tool using a screening method described in the patent.

United KingdomIntellectual Property
Nick Beckett
Nick Beckett
Isabel Davies
Isabel Davies
Tom Scourfield
Tom Scourfield

Bringing you monthly news of key developments in intellectual property law

PATENTS

Bayer Schering Pharma AG, T 1063/06 - 3.3.10, 3 February 2009

The EPO Board of Appeal (BoA) rejected claims to functionally defined chemical compounds, which were to be identified via a new research tool using a screening method described in the patent.  The claims were rejected on the basis that they were broader than the applicant's invention, and also that the claims were insufficient because the skilled person would have to carry out a research programme to establish whether or not any particular compound fell within the claims. The translation of the decision was not published until March 2010, but the original decision was given in February 2009.

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

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

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

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

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

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