Inventive step

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.

(Indirect) infringement, Antibodies, Biologics, Inventive step, Sufficiency of disclosure, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/

It could be argued that 2013 is proving to be somewhat unkind to UK patentees when it comes to the issues of sufficiency and priority. On 25 June 2013, in a typically comprehensive judgment running to some 90 pages, Arnold J held that Janssen’s patent was invalid for insufficiency. The relevant facts were as follows:…

Case Law, Chemical Engineering, Germany, Inventive step, Novelty, Validity

(Hoffmann Eitle)/

and Bernd Kröger. A combination of two pharmaceutical ingredients, i.e. leflunomide and teriflunomide is to be considered obvious if the person skilled in the art uses an obvious process to obtain leflunomide that automatically results in – even with a certain delay – both components due to a chemical reaction. Click here for the full text…

Case Law, Chemical Engineering, Enforcement, Exceptions to patentability, Inventive step, Novelty, Prior use right, Sweden

(Bird & Bird)/

The Stockholm District Court held the Swedish part of a European patent concerning a method of growing two or more plants invalid, due to lack of inventive step. Despite requests for limitations by the proprietor the patent was declared invalid in its entirety. Infringement, exceptions to patentability and prior use rights were also considered by…

Case Law, Chemical Engineering, Extent of Protection, Inventive step, Procedure, Sweden, Validity

(Bird & Bird)/

In a combined patent infringement and nullity case, the Svea Court of Appeal upheld the validity of Roche Diagnostics’ European patent as far as Sweden was concerned, but held, other than the District Court, that the alleged infringer did not infringe the patent at issue. The Court of Appeal further held that a patent can…

Germany, Inventive step

(Hoffmann Eitle)/

One of the big difficulties in the everyday evaluation of inventive step revolves around the role that the problem underlying the invention should play in such evaluation. Two examples of more recent decisions of the German Federal Court of Justice are provided here to illustrate “the problem”. In its decision Kosmetisches Sonnenschutzmittel III (X ZR…

(Cross-border) jurisdiction, (Indirect) infringement, Case Law, Chemical Engineering, Enforcement, Injunction, Inventive step, Netherlands

(Brinkhof)/

The PI judge in the District Court of The Hague held that under certain circumstances, provisional cross-border jurisdiction can be derived from art. 31 Regulation (EC) 44/2001, which would require a “real connecting link” between the sought measures and the jurisdiction of a contracting state (ECJ C-391/95, Van Uden/Decoline). However, in the present case there…

Biologics, Case Law, EPC, Inventive step

(Vereenigde)/

In order to determine whether the features that distinguish the patent claims over the prior art can be considered when assessing inventive ste p and novelty, the Board must consider whether these features make a technical contribution to the invention. Click here for the full text of this case. A summary of this case will be…

Enforcement, Germany, Injunction, Inventive step, Novelty, Validity

(Hoffmann Eitle)/

In its “Leflunomid” decision of 24 July 2012 (Case X ZR 126/09), the FCJ declared a patent claim to be invalid which covered a combination of leflunomide and teriflunomide, on the grounds that it had long been known in the prior art (for 100 years) that some leflunomide spontaneously and unavoidably converts teriflunomide over time…

(Indirect) infringement, Antibodies, Inventive step, Novelty, Pharma, Sufficiency of disclosure, United Kingdom

(Bristows)/ /1 Comment

In our post on 30 October 2012 we referred to forthcoming appeals dealing with how the question of obviousness should be tackled by the English courts. The Court of Appeal has now given its verdict in several judgments. The latest decision in Regeneron v Genentech dealt not only with the question of obviousness but also…