Contrary to the decision of the Opposition Division issued two weeks later, the District Court of The Hague held Novozymes’ patent to be novel and inventive. It also held the patent indirectly infringed. The court held that a literal disclosure of a claim feature in the prior art does not necessarily equate to a directly and unambiguously disclosure, because the claims need to be read in context of the descriptions and drawings. The court dismissed the obviousness attack based on a combination of documents as hindsight reasoning, because it cannot be considered obvious for the skilled person to combine the closest prior art with another document that does not refer to the patented process, even when that document explicitly refers to the closest prior art.
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.
