European Union: Patent

This page appears to be a security verification checkpoint that temporarily blocks access while validating the incoming request. The system implements protective measures to distinguish legitimate users from automated traffic or potential security threats.

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.

A review under R.197.3 RoP only benefits the party that files it; co-defendants who do not seek review remain bound by the original order

The Court of Appeal verifies ex officio compliance with the time limits and rules governing the appeal. When deciding on the admissibility of an appeal, an order rejecting the appeal as...

This page appears to be a security verification checkpoint that temporarily blocks access while validating the incoming request. The system implements protective measures to distinguish legitimate users from automated traffic or potential security threats.

A party may make an application for a confidentiality order pursuant to R. 262A.1 RoP if it is seeking protection for information that it is required to disclose under the operative part of a court decision. However, the application must be made during the proceedings on the merits if it can be reasonably foreseen that confidentiality issues will arise.

The Dennemeyer Group introduces DIAMS Infinity, a next-generation IP management software that leverages artificial intelligence to automate repetitive tasks and streamline portfolio management. How does this cloud-based solution address the operational complexity and manual coordination challenges that have long plagued IP professionals managing expanding portfolios?

The Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court examined an application to change the language of proceedings in a patent dispute between Dutch companies. The decision explores how factors such as party size, domicile, and technological context influence language selection, even when the patent's original language is commonly used in the relevant technical field.

The Court of Appeal clarifies critical procedural rules regarding non-technical features in patent claims and the timing requirements for initiating appeals. These decisions establish important precedents for how technical character assessments must consider feature interactions and when appeal periods officially commence under the Unified Patent Court Agreement.