In this case the Court held that a previous patent application and other scientific publications which did not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art, could not influence the novelty of the invention for which that patent application was later filed.

The Court confirmed that an improvement of the aforementioned invention by using one’s own scientific knowledge, technical experience and significant connection of the elements which are the part of the state of the art can lead to the creation of a new invention that fulfils the conditions of novelty and inventive step.

Click here for the full text of this case.

A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.


To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Patent Blog, please subscribe here.

Kluwer IP Law

The 2022 Future Ready Lawyer survey showed that 79% of lawyers think that the importance of legal technology will increase for next year. With Kluwer IP Law you can navigate the increasingly global practice of IP law with specialized, local and cross-border information and tools from every preferred location. Are you, as an IP professional, ready for the future?

Learn how Kluwer IP Law can support you.

Kluwer IP Law
This page as PDF