The inventive step reflects a general patentability requirement in most patent laws, according to which an invention should be sufficiently inventive (not obvious in view of the prior art using the skilled person’s common general knowledge) in order to be patented / the patent to be held valid. In the United States, rather than ‘inventive step’, the expression ‘non-obviousness’ is used: is the invention an adequate distance beyond or above the state of the art? The assessment of the inventive step varies from one country to another. The European Patent Office uses the so-called problem-and-solution approach to assess inventive step, an instrument also used by several national European courts.
The classic English approach for determining whether a claimed invention is obvious is to compare the prior art and the claimed invention, to identify the differences between the two and to ask whether those differences, viewed without knowledge of the claimed invention, were obvious or required any degree of invention*. This is often contrasted with…
One of the points of contention in cases where inventive step is discussed is which expert is better suited to express an opinion on whether or not the invention would have been obvious for the person skilled in the art. English Courts, for example, have a long-standing tradition of carefully scrutinising the experts presented by…
On 20 March 2012, the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris rendered its decision in the case relating to raloxifene, a molecule useful for treating or preventing osteoporosis in post-menopausal women, opposing Teva to Eli Lilly. This decision raises many questions, first concerning drug patents in particular (patentability of second medical use, patentability of the resolution of…
The Court of Appeal confirms the revocation by the District Court of a patent relating to a coformulation of timolol and dorzolamide for the treatment of glaucoma , for lack of inventive step. The combination of these two substances was disclosed before the priority date as a concomitant therapy. The skilled person would turn this…
This contribution compares various decisions of national European courts on inventive step in the case of a monohydrate of a (known) drug, i.e. calcipotriol.
In a recent decision (16.5.2012) the Supreme Court in Denmark has ruled on the requirement of creative step that applies to Danish utility models and serves the same purpose as inventive step in respect of patents. The utility model-in-suit had been invalidated by the Danish Patent Office and that decision was upheld by the Maritime…
When seeking to improve a data structure prescribed in an international standard, the skilled person would consider mechanisms already described in the standard when solving the identified technical problem. If the standard provides a manageable number of possible solutions, each having specific advantages and disadvantages, this provides an incentive to take each of the solutions…
As in other jurisdictions, German Courts try to determine whether an invention is patentable over the prior art by looking at it through the eyes of the notional skilled person at the effective filing date of the patent at issue. In a decision pronounced on March 6, 2012 (docket X ZR 78/09), the German Federal…
Last April we reported the case of Gedeon Richter plc v Bayer Schering Pharma AG [2011] EWHC 583 (Pat), concerning immediate release formulations of a combination contraceptive product containing the steroidal hormones drospirenone and ethinylestradiol. We can now report the decision of the Court of Appeal in this case (handed down on 7 March 2012)…
The “first-to-file” provisions of the United States “America Invents Act (AIA)” take effect on March 16, 2013. Because of other changes to the U.S. patent system, this date will be just as important to patent applications being filed around the world as it will be to those being filed in the United States. Here, I…
