Anaïs Pallut

AD Article

Appeal against an INPI decision on patent opposition: insights from the Paris Court of Appeal on the assessment of novelty and the admissibility of new subsidiary requests for amendment of the patent

The Paris Court of Appeal has just handed down its second ruling on an appeal against an INPI decision ruling on opposition to a French patent . This judgment of 9 April 2025 was handed down in the case of Tinnus (patentee) v Koopman (opponent) . It provides two lessons of interest to patent litigation practitioners.

AD Article

1st decisions on the merits issued by the UPC Central Division (2/2): key findings from the CD Paris decisions of 19 and 29 July

On 19 July, we published the first part of our study on the assessment of inventive step by the UPC Central Division. On the same day, the Central Division

AD Article

1st decisions on the merits issued by the UPC Central Division (1/2): what does the UPC say about the assessment of inventive step compared to the EPO?

Since the entry into force of the Unified Patent Court (UPC), one of the burning questions that practitioners have in mind is whether the UPC will apply the problem-solution approach of the European Patent Office (EPO) in its assessment of the inventive step. While it is still too early to draw any conclusions, it would appear from the decisions we have studied that the UPC applies its own standards, drawing inspiration from the EPO's problem-solution approach without duplicating it. We offer here a first analysis of how UPC assessed inventive step up to the recent decisions of the Central Division issued on 16 July (Sanofi v. Amgen and Regeneron v. Amgen ). A second publication will focus on the Central Division's decisions of July 19 (Meril v. Edwards Lifesciences ).