The Barcelona Court of Appeal (Section 15) overturned a first instance decision, making an interesting finding on the application of the “problem-solution approach”: if the revocation claimant submits that its choice of closest prior art only differs from the claimed invention in one (or more) specific feature(s), but the court finds that further differences exist…

As reported in last week’s post, on 20 January 2021 Birss J handed down what may be his last first instance decision before his elevation to the Court of Appeal.  The first post on the judgment considered the issues of identifying the skilled person, insufficiency and infringement.  This second part considers the decision relating to…

On 20 January 2021 Birss J handed down what may be his last first instance decision before he takes his place in the Court of Appeal.  If that turns out to the case then Illumina Cambridge Limited v Latvia MGI Tech SIA and others is a substantial judgment to mark this departure.  In this case…

On 4 December 2020, the English Patents Court handed down its decision in Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Limited & Flynn Pharma Limited v Generics UK Limited (t/a Mylan) & Mylan UK Healthcare Limited, the main action proceedings regarding Neurim’s patent for Circadin™, EP 1 441 702 (“EP 702”).  The judgment is available here. Many readers will…

On 15 October 2020 Meade J. handed down his first ever written judgment in his new role as a Judge of the High Court in MSD v Wyeth. The neutral citation for the case is [2020] EWHC 2636 (Pat) and a link to the judgment is found here. The Judge had heard the case back…

Mishan (T/A Emson) v Hozelock & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 871 Since Arnold LJ’s elevation to the Court of Appeal in 2019, he and Floyd LJ have heard about 11 cases together, spanning a mixture of areas of law, some patents cases and some not.  In the majority of these cases, Floyd LJ (or a…

Prior art that requires fundamental reconfiguration of the disclosed solution to end up with something falling under the scope of protection of a claim cannot normally render the claimed subject matter obvious. Case date: 17 January 2019 Case number: X ZR 8/17 Court: Federal Court of Justice of Germany A full summary of this case has been…

A jury’s verdict that snowmobile frame patents asserted against Arctic Cat were indefinite and invalid as anticipated or obvious was supported by substantial evidence. A federal district court correctly upheld a jury verdict invalidating two Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. snowmobile frame patents because substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings that Bombardier’s patent related to rider…

A claim defining a compound as having a certain purity would lack novelty over a prior art disclosure describing the same compound only if the prior art disclosed the claimed purity at least implicitly, for example by way of a method for preparing said compound, the method inevitably resulting in the claimed purity. Such a…