London, United Kingdom Engineering and Design practice group

“They understand what we need and how we work – they’ve just got it really.”

(Client comment - Client satisfaction survey)

With a heritage stretching back to 1894, Boult Wade Tennant has long been regarded as a quality firm producing quality work. As a firm, we nurture attorneys with exceptional technical skills, a wealth of legal experience and a depth of commercial awareness. These assets combine to provide our clients with a real advantage. You only have to look at the recent reviews and league tables to see that this is a view shared by our clients and peers alike.

We place an emphasis not only on the quality of our work, but also on the quality of the service we provide to our clients. Always approachable, down-to-earth and jargon-free, it is our aim to work with you, not just for you. By getting to know you and your business, we can offer practical solutions to the problems you face. “Partnership” and “team work” are more than just words. They are part of who we are: enthusiastic team players, equipped with the necessary technical, legal and commercial knowledge that allows us to partner you in whatever may lie ahead.

News and information

Changes to search procedures following a unity objection at the EPO

On 1 November 2014, rule changes will enter into force at the EPO affecting the searches carried out for International patent applications entering the European regional phase.  Read more

Prioritising processing of European patent applications

Last year, filings at the European Patent Office (EPO) reached a new high, with over 265,000 new filings in 2013 (according to EPO sources). In order to cope with the increased workload whilst maintaining their high standards, the EPO recently unveiled a new initiative entitled “Early Certainty from Search”.   Read more

UK Patents Court interprets CJEUs decision on Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) in Eli Lilly v HGS (C493-12)

In December 2013 the CJEU handed down its ruling in Eli Lilly v HGS (C493-12), please refer to our previous bulletin for further details, which sought to clarify Article 3(a) of the SPC regulation (469/2009/EC). In that judgement the CJEU ruled that a functional definition of an active ingredient in a claim is enough to obtain an SPC, provided the claims relate implicitly but necessarily and specifically to the active ingredient in question.  Read more