Search for: "Matter of Cappellini"
Results 1 - 4
of 4
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Mar 2007, 2:30 pm
Here, I think it is perfectly plain that claim 1, which is, as Mr Cappellini says, the broadest and most abstract claim, does not relate to patentable subject matter". [read post]
6 Jul 2007, 1:14 am
Appointed a Queen's Counsel in 1990, he was Junior Counsel to Her Majesty's Treasury (Patents) from 1987 to 1990.The IPKat reminds his readers of some of Sir Nicholas's recent decisions: * Triumph Actuation Systems LLC v Aeroquip-Vickers Ltd and another [2007] EWHC 1367 (Pat) on patent amendments (see IPKat here);* Miss World Ltd v Channel 4 on trade marks versus free speech (the IPKat's not sure this one's right, though);* Cappellini's and Bloomberg's… [read post]
3 Apr 2007, 1:00 pm
Although the decision is on the face of it in line with previous similar decisions (notably T 0453/91, enthusiastically followed by Pumfrey J in Halliburton and Cappellini/Bloomberg), it does seem to take the reasoning to its extreme. [read post]
7 Jul 2007, 12:07 am
What mattered in determining the contribution was to consider the substance of the claimed invention, but this was not to say that the form of claims was not a matter of substance. [read post]
