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.
Advanced Cell Diagnostics v Molecular Instruments [2024] EWHC 898 (Pat) On 23 April 2024, Mr Justice Meade handed down his judgment in the dispute between Advanced Cell Diagnostics (ACD) and Molecular Instruments (MI). ACD is the proprietor of two European patents which relate to in situ detection of nucleic acids in single cells. EP (UK)…
Introduction It is common for parties to English patent litigation to settle their differences after the first instance judgment on the merits from the Court. This is for several reasons including the thoroughness of the Patents Court Judges, the Court of Appeal’s approach to issues such as obviousness (where only an error of principle will…
Following the issuance of G 2/21 last year, we asked whether the plausibility elephant had left the room. Our Kluwer colleague and friend Miquel Montañá discussed this issue more recently here. Several decisions have meanwhile been issued applying the new “test” in G2/21, the lucidity of which may have reminded readers of the oracle of…
A hefty judgment was recently handed down by Mellor J concerning a patent for a modified release formulation of mirabegron. The patent was held to be valid and not infringed by Sandoz, while infringement with respect to Teva (which had admitted infringement with an earlier version of its product but sought a declaration of non-infringement…
The Status Quo injunction is not a variation on Wayne’s World classic “No Stairway, Denied” joke. While some may yearn for a ban on their generic tunes, Status Quo is still not denied. That is not the faith of all generics, as Teva found out in Dutch litigation over its generic version of Grünenthal’s Nebido:…
On 25 July 2023, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Teva & Sandoz v Astellas[1] concerning the validity of Astellas’ patent to mirabegron for use in the treatment of overactive bladder (“OAB”). At first instance, Meade J had held the patent valid and infringement by the generics’ proposed acts was not separately…
On 4 May 2023, a mere two weeks after the conclusion of the hearing, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Sandoz and Teva v BMS. The appeal decision is centred on the question of plausibility and comes hot on the heels of the Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision in G 2/21. Indeed,…
On 28 February 2023, the majority of the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court did not find sufficient grounds for rebutting the presumption of the validity of the Danish patent DK/EP 2 959 894 (the “Contested Patent”), held by Novartis, and thus decided to grant a preliminary injunction against Zentiva. Notably, though, the opposing judge…
On 24 August 2022, Nicholas Caddick QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court) handed down his decision in Vernacare Limited v Moulded Fibre Products Limited [2022] EWHC 2197 (IPEC), a case on open topped washbowls made from moulded paper pulp, such as those used in hospitals, care homes…
On 4 August 2022, the English Patents court handed down its decision in Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd v The NOCO Company, a case on battery-powered car jump starters. The decision of Mr Justice Meade is of particular interest as it addresses experts and hindsight, the third limb of the Actavis questions on the doctrine…
