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.
After years of not having handed down judgments in patent cases, in recent months the Supreme Court has handed down several interesting judgments which will hopefully give more guidance to lower level Courts. The last judgment in this recent saga, handed down on 18 July 2011, has confirmed the judgment of 19 December 2006 from…
The Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) in Germany has held in its recent “Dentalgerätesatz” decision that claim 1 of EP 892 625 is novel since it claimed a new functional adaptation of otherwise known elements to serve a certain purpose. In doing so, the FCJ reversed the first-instance decision of the Federal Patent Court.
The Borgarting Court of Appeal overturned the district court decision which revoked the patents in suit for lack of inventive step. The Court held that even if oxycodone had been known and used to treat pain as an alternative to morphine, the skilled person could not have predicted that a controlled release formulation with oxycodone…
The decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office which revokes a European patent due to lack of inventive step, is a supra-national legal instrument which can be the object of a complaint to the German Constitutional Court. Such complaints are only admissible if the protection of fundamental rights is no longer…
The Milan Court revoked a patent on the second medical use of a known drug because excerpts of the protocol of the clinical trials aimed at proving efficacy of the second use had been published before the relevant date in a scientific journal. The Court held that the outcome of the trials – which later…
In Denmark, a patentee may opt to apply for a utility model registration in addition to a patent, provided that the conditions for the grant of both rights are fulfilled. One of the strategic advantages of applying for both rights in Denmark is that the utility model registration is not subject to as thorough a…
Imagine: Wouldn’t it be fantastic to have one single patent which you could apply for at the WPO, the World Patent Office? A World Patent, which would be valid worldwide and which could be enforced in each single country of the world with worldwide effect? Decisions of the national local chambers of the World Patent…
In the recent case of Merck v Teva (decision of 8 April [2011] EWCA Civ 382), the English Court of Appeal confirmed that when considering the question of inventive step in light of prior art, it did not matter that the prior art was published only a few days before the priority date of a…
It is difficult to over-estimate the importance of expert evidence in patents cases before the English Court. In a typical trial well over half of the time will be devoted to cross-examination of the parties’ experts in front of the Judge who will be guaranteed to listen carefully and form an opinion. The choice of…
H. Lundbeck A/S (hereinafter referred to as Lundbeck) is the holder of European patent EP 0 347 066 entitled “new enantiomers and their isolation”, which designates France and was filed on 1 June 1989; it claims priority of a British patent dated 14 June 1988. The invention relates to the two new enantiomers of the antidepressant drug Citalopram and the use of…
