United Kingdom Patent Decisions 2016

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This report highlights the main UK patent cases from 2016, including the interpretation of “plausibility” and “obvious to try”, obviousness, experimental use, numerical limits, infringement, stays, and a case to watch on “Arrow declarations”.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)179-183
Number of pages5
JournalIIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Volume48
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 28 Feb 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

patent
interpretation

Cite this

@article{62fc8e1106ac4a7a8737f051ff0bdfc2,
title = "United Kingdom Patent Decisions 2016",
abstract = "This report highlights the main UK patent cases from 2016, including the interpretation of “plausibility” and “obvious to try”, obviousness, experimental use, numerical limits, infringement, stays, and a case to watch on “Arrow declarations”.",
keywords = "Arrow declaration, experimental use, obvious to try, obviousness, patent law, plausibility",
author = "Julia Powles",
year = "2017",
month = "2",
day = "28",
doi = "10.1007/s40319-017-0557-2",
language = "English",
volume = "48",
pages = "179--183",
journal = "IIC-INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COMPETITION LAW",
issn = "0018-9855",
publisher = "C.H. Beck Verlag",
number = "2",

}

United Kingdom Patent Decisions 2016. / Powles, Julia.

In: IIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Vol. 48, No. 2, 28.02.2017, p. 179-183.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - United Kingdom Patent Decisions 2016

AU - Powles, Julia

PY - 2017/2/28

Y1 - 2017/2/28

N2 - This report highlights the main UK patent cases from 2016, including the interpretation of “plausibility” and “obvious to try”, obviousness, experimental use, numerical limits, infringement, stays, and a case to watch on “Arrow declarations”.

AB - This report highlights the main UK patent cases from 2016, including the interpretation of “plausibility” and “obvious to try”, obviousness, experimental use, numerical limits, infringement, stays, and a case to watch on “Arrow declarations”.

KW - Arrow declaration

KW - experimental use

KW - obvious to try

KW - obviousness

KW - patent law

KW - plausibility

U2 - 10.1007/s40319-017-0557-2

DO - 10.1007/s40319-017-0557-2

M3 - Article

VL - 48

SP - 179

EP - 183

JO - IIC-INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COMPETITION LAW

JF - IIC-INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COMPETITION LAW

SN - 0018-9855

IS - 2

ER -