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 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…
The District Court of The Hague revoked Glaxo’s European Patent and Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) for an inhalable combination of fluticasone and salmeterol due to lack of inventive step. This decision is put in a pan-European perspective, with reference to the UK case law on inventive step, as well as the parallel English, German and…
The District Court of The Hague passed judgment today in a case between Sandoz and Glaxo regarding a combination patent held by Glaxo. The judgment comprises an extensive “lecture” on the assessment of inventive step and may become a benchmark for future cases.
On 27 October 2010 the Court of Rome issued a decision in the Janssen – Menarini v. EG case concerning the active substance nebivolol. This is one of the few reported cases on enantiomer patents in Italy. In more detail, the basic patent inter alia disclosed an AB compound (so called compound 84) formed of…
