Skip To Main Content
Marta Alvarez Guede on Muck Rack

Marta Alvarez Guede

As seen in: Lexology, Intellectual Asset Management
Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work. Claim your profile

Get in touch with Marta Alvarez

Contact Marta Alvarez, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.

Learn more about Muck Rack

Actions

Share this page

Is this you?

As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile

Articles

Claim interpretation: to what extent can the description of a patent be used to interpret the claims?

|
By Sarah Patterson, Brigit den Adel, Aleksandra Zwolinska, Mikola Schlottke, Vincent Verhoeven, Marta Alvarez Guede
| Lexology Verified
In T0447/22, the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division (OD) to grant auxiliary request 4 was appealed by opponents (O) 1 and 2, as well as the patent proprietor (P). The patentee also brought infringement proceedings in Germany against opponent 2. Claim 1 as granted specified: "[…] a machining device for machining the material of a pipe system". The device was defined as comprising a) protruding parts, b) means for removing a material and c) a steering device.
Open in Who Shared Issue with article?

A party has the duty to fully explain its own objection of lack of novelty at each stage of the appeal procedure

|
By Ann-Sofie Hallbäck, Mikola Schlottke, Brigit den Adel, Sarah Patterson, Vincent Verhoeven, Aleksandra Zwolinska, Marta Alvarez Guede
| Lexology Verified
In T 700/21, the Board of Appeal discussed novelty and inventive step of the claims of granted patent EP 2 023 473, for which the opposition had been rejected. The Board stated that the opponent appellant has the duty to fully explain its own objection of lack of novelty, at any stage of the appeal proceedings.
Open in Who Shared Issue with article?

Board of Appeal can review parts of appealed decision not challenged by the appellant

|
By Mikola Schlottke, Ann-Sofie Hallbäck, Brigit den Adel, Aleksandra Zwolinska, Vincent Verhoeven, Marta Alvarez Guede, Liselot Arkesteijn
| Lexology Verified
In T 0655/2 1, the Opponent appealed the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) to reject their opposition. The OD deemed that none of the grounds invoked by the opponent – added matter, novelty, inventive step – prejudiced the maintenance of the patent as granted.
Open in Who Shared Issue with article?
See all 20 articles