It has long been held that a prior art disclosure of a chemical compound would disclose this chemical compound in all grades of purity and that novelty could only be achieved if the claimed level of purity could not be reached in the prior art. However, in the current decision the view that such an…

As readers will be well aware, one of the points on which the courts of various European countries diverge, is whether or not the prosecution history of the patent at hand may be taken into account to interpret its scope of protection. For example, the UK Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment of 12 July…

Petitioner expert testimony in inter partes review of a surgical tool patent was more credible than patent owner’s expert that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine asserted prior art and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in do so. There was substantial evidence to support the Patent…

The Board incorrectly interpreted Section 311(b)’s “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” to encompass applicant admitted prior art, but such art may be relevant as an admission. Concluding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board incorrectly considered applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) in its review of a Qualcomm’s integrated circuit patent in a…

In this decision of the Patents Court, Meade J dismissed an infringement claim brought by Promptu against Sky, on grounds that Promptu’s patent lacked inventive step.  The decision is interesting as it grapples with issues of infringement where some steps of a claimed method are performed outside the UK.  The decision also provides helpful guidance…

The Barcelona Court of Appeal (Section 15) overturned a first instance decision, making an interesting finding on the application of the “problem-solution approach”: if the revocation claimant submits that its choice of closest prior art only differs from the claimed invention in one (or more) specific feature(s), but the court finds that further differences exist…

As reported in last week’s post, on 20 January 2021 Birss J handed down what may be his last first instance decision before his elevation to the Court of Appeal.  The first post on the judgment considered the issues of identifying the skilled person, insufficiency and infringement.  This second part considers the decision relating to…

On 20 January 2021 Birss J handed down what may be his last first instance decision before he takes his place in the Court of Appeal.  If that turns out to the case then Illumina Cambridge Limited v Latvia MGI Tech SIA and others is a substantial judgment to mark this departure.  In this case…