Novelty

Novelty is a requirement for patentability. An invention is not new and therefore not patentable if it was known to the public (disclosed in the prior art) before the filing date of the patent application, or, if the application claims priority of an earlier patent application, before the priority date.

Antibodies, Case Law, European Union, Litigation, Novelty, Patents, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent, Prior art, Sufficiency of disclosure, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/

Among the flurry of pre-summer vacation judgments coming from the Patents Court is one from Mr Justice Birss (17 July 2019), concerning the validity of Hoffman-La Roche’s patent EP (UK) 2 007 809. EP’809 is a formulation patent for the monoclonal antibody vedolizumab, marketed as Entyvio® and used to treat ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease….

Biologics, Case Law, Germany, Novelty

, (Hoffmann Eitle)/

If a patent only provides the skilled person with a general scientific explanation as to why the procedure disclosed therein is suitable for the purpose in question and does not disclose a new technical teaching in relation to this purpose, but merely a discovery of biological correlations, then this is insufficient to acknowledge novelty (continuation…

Case Law, EPO, EPO Decision, European Union, Novelty

(GJE Intellectual Property)/

This recent decision from an EPO Board of Appeal is a rather satisfying development in how patentability (especially novelty) of purity claims is assessed at the EPO.  This case may be seen as patentee-friendly, particularly for the pharmaceutical sector, as it likely extends protection for APIs.  It will become especially important to review this case…

Case Law, Inventive step, Novelty, United Kingdom

/

The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision that the patent in suit lacked novelty and inventive step over the prior art. The Court confirmed, following Halliburton v Smith, that despite the fact the parties had reached a confidential settlement and Sony was not involved in the appeal, it was necessary to hear the…

Amendments, China, Enforcement, Inventive step, Novelty, Pharmaceutical patent, Prior art, Scope of protection

(Baker & McKenzie), (Zy Partners), and (ZY Partners)/

A Markush claim is a type of claim commonly used in chemical and pharmaceutical fields. On December 20, 2017, in Beijing Winsunny Harmony Science & Technology Co., Ltd. v. Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd, (“Daiichi Sankyo Case”), the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) resolved a long standing-split among Chinese courts regarding the interpretation and amendment of Markush…

Novelty, Spain

(Clifford Chance)/ /1 Comment

The Barcelona Court of Appeal (Section 15) recently handed down an interesting judgment (dated 6 February 2018) revoking a utility model and ordering the owner to pay the damages caused by having enforced it while knowing that it lacked novelty. According to Article 114 of the former Spanish Patent Act (equivalent to Article 104 of…

Case Law, Infringement, Inventive step, Litigation, Novelty, Prior art, Revocation, United Kingdom, Validity

, (Bristows)/

Around this time last year, in Edwards Lifesciences v Boston Scientific [2017], His Honour Judge Hacon (sitting as a High Court Judge) had the opportunity to analyse two interesting aspects of UK patent law: (i) the law of implied disclosures and anticipation; and (ii) the importance of so-called secondary evidence in the evaluation of inventive…

EPC, EPO, Equivalents, Inventive step, Litigation, Novelty, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent, Prior art, Revocation, Second Medical Use, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/

Patent lawyers in the UK have spent the last three months pondering, debating and at times indulging in an element of despair (to put it mildly) about what might be the impact of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Actavis v Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48 on issues of validity (see here). Today they…