Skip Navigation

Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 2008 3(2):68-70; doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpn002
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author (2008). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved

JIPLP Express

JIPLP Express

A rapid-read overview of the main items in this issue

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.


   Current intelligence
 
Patents
Amendment of claims that narrow scope can infringe Article 123(2) EPC. During opposition proceedings the proprietor filed a main request that contained claims that were narrower in scope than the claims as granted. The opposition division revoked the patent and this main request became the main request in the proprietor's appeal. The main request was found by the Board of Appeal to infringe Article 123(2) EPC as the narrower claims changed the meaning of the examples given in the description. (p. 72)

Use of a disclaimer in order to overcome the Article 123(2) and Article 123(3) EPC ‘trap’. This case concerns an attempt to overcome a problem under Art 123(2) EPC by deleting a restrictive feature in the granted claim which extended beyond the application as filed. This deletion, however, lead to a problem under Art 123(3) EPC as it extended the scope of protection of the claims—the proprietor therefore . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Trade marks
Copyright
General

   Practice Point
 
Should I stay or should I go? (p. 86)

   Articles
 
Towards an EC directive on plant breeder's rights? (p. 97)
The future of copyright in India (p. 102)
Does private copying need an update in the UK? (p. 115)
Would the current ambiguities within the legal protection of software be solved by the creation of a sui generis property right for computer programs? (p. 125)

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?