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.
Separating and testing the two enantiomers of a chiral molecule having an already-known therapeutic effect in order to identify the active enantiomer, evaluating its specific therapeutic effect and finally recommending, through the patent, its use for an identical but better-quality therapeutic effect, involves no inventive step.
By decision no. 6967/2009 of 14 May 2009, the IP Chamber of the Court of Milan found for the invalidity of a patent claiming the second medical use of a known pharmaceutical product for lack of inventive step. This decision is remarkable for at least two reasons. Firstly, the Court departed from the findings of…
On the basis of a use patent, Aventis filed for interim relief against Hospira at the Bailiff’s Court (Enforcement court) at Lyngby City Court in Denmark. The claim was based on DK/EP 0593656 and the defence raised by Hospira was invalidity of the invoked right.
The District Court of The Hague granted Mundipharma a provisional injunction against Sandoz for infringement of its patent for a controlled release oxycodon formulation. The District Court suspended its decision on the validity and infringement of the patent in the main action until a final decision has been rendered in the opposition proceedings. The Court…
The English Court of Appeal dismissed Novartis’ appeal against the finding of the Patents Court that Novartis’ patent for a sustained release formulation of fluvastatin was invalid for obviousness. The case was unusual because, at first instance, Warren J. had held the patent to be inventive on a conventional analysis but then went on to find it obvious using an acontextual approach. The Court of Appeal discussed the correct approach to the question of obviousness in English law, by reference to both the problem and solution approach developed by the European Patent Office and the established four-step approach developed by the English Courts in Windsurfing v Tabur Marine and Pozzoli v BDMO .
This case relates to the opposition against Amazon’s famous ‘one-click’ patent. The Board ruled that what is required for obtaining patent protection for a software-implemented business method is that the software should contribute to a technical effect which goes beyond the mere implementation of the business method itself. The Board held that although computer-implemented business…
In this case the Board ruled that features providing a displayed icon of a three-dimensional appearance have technical character and thus should be considered when assessing inventive step. According to the Board these features specify how the information is displayed and not what is displayed so that these features do not fall under the category…
The case concerned the validity of a ‘selection patent’. The Court of Appeal held that there is no special approach to be adopted in determining the validity of selection patents and that UK law should be consistent with EPO jurisprudence. For novelty, a prior disclosure of a large class of compounds does not take away…
After a fresh analysis in light of evidence provided by the complainant, the Barcelona Court of Appeal confirmed the novelty of Calcium Atorvastatin, as it had done in earlier judgments of 2007 and 2008. In addition, this is the first judgment in which the Court confirmed the inventive activity of this product. For its analysis…
The Commercial Court Number 4 of Barcelona found that although obtaining the price for generic versions of Calcium Atorvastatin by two Spanish companies from the Ministry of Health is not an act of infringement as such, the acts carried out by the defendants constituted a threat of infringement that justified a prohibition to enter the…
