Übersetzung für "Contested patent" in Deutsch

The teaching of D2 conflicted with the teaching of the contested patent.

The Board considers that the priority of the contested patent has been validly claimed.

Moreover the better yields according to the contested patent were not an indication of inventive step.

In essence, the two appellants and the intervening party are requesting revocation of the contested patent.

This substantive requirement for maintaining the contested patent is not fulfilled in the present case.

The contested patent therefore deals with the problem of making the cartons easier to handle.

Lack of acknowledgement of D1/D1a in the contested patent is irrelevant in opposition-appeal proceedings.

The Commission considers there are no imperative reasons why the Commission should raise any objections, as the contested patent does not infringe essential ethical rules and concerns the field of application which can be granted to a patent relating to a DNA sequence.

Cases where the two sides stop litigation without payment and the restrictions are within the scope of the contested patent or patent settlements where the generic company can enter without delay and restrictions are normally not problematic under antitrust law.

Boehringer appealed this decision to the next EPO instance, which would have kept the contested patent in force until the appeal had been decided.

Moreover, in the case under consideration, the opposition division in fact rejected the opposition, which was based on Article 100(a) EPC (lack of novelty and lack of inventive step), taking the view that "the subject-matter of the contested patent meets the requirements of novelty and inventive step".

According to the sole claim (main request) submitted in the oral proceedings on 23 February 1988 the contested patent relates to use of specific copolymers as incrustation inhibitors in detergent formulations.

By including the said features the application also clearly represents a restriction vis-à-vis the contested patent as granted.

In the present case, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company deliberately acted in its own name when filing an opposition against the contested patent, without ever stating that it was acting on behalf of its subsidiary (assuming that making this known would have made any difference), even though that subsidiary had full legal capacity and as such, constituting a "person" within the meaning of Article 99(1) EPC, was perfectly entitled to file the opposition in its own name, even if acting on the instructions of the parent company.

The facts adduced in support of the cited ground for opposition - lack of novelty - have not therefore been given since there is no indication which of the 24 combinations of features claimed in Claim 1 of the contested patent is or are supposedly already known.

After the board had notified the parties of its provisional view that the contested patent appeared to have met the requirements with regard to disclosure under Article 83 EPC and that the facts contained in the opposition and appeal file gave the board no cause to arrive at an opinion different from that of the department of first instance with regard to the failure to substantiate the case for public prior use, the appellant elected not to pursue these arguments further.

In the impugned decision the same wording of the claim of the contested patent is used when referring to the prior art.

The subrange singled out here in the claim thus represents a quantitative range which has not yet been individualised and whose application in the production of thiochloroformates by the process according to the contested patent is new.

What is in dispute is whether the disclosure of the subject- matter of the contested patent was associated with a secrecy agreement when the order was placed and whether or not the Schiffswerft Cassens employees present at that event are therefore to be counted as the public.

In the case in point, not only could the primary problem underlying the contested patent neither be found nor be derived from the prior art documents, but also the claimed features complemented each other.

It would make any difference whether the alternative embodiments are listed in a detailed list of the patent or whether they are named collectively through a parent generic term - as it is the case in the contested patent.

The board nonetheless deemed the opposition admissible because the contested patent was identifiable uniquely and fairly easily on the basis of the specified publication number.

In a submission dated 14 July 1992 (received on 16 July 1992) the opponents' representative lodged an appeal against the opposition division's decision, which had been communicated to the parties to the proceedings on 5 June 1992, and requested that the contested patent be revoked in its entirety.

As a result, in view of the technical effects to be achieved, which would be equivalent in D4/D5(D1a) and in the contested patent, the skilled person would have immediately thought of the claimed solution as a possible embodiment, which is an obvious simple technical adaptation to that of D4/D5(D1a).