14. Patents - general Flashcards
IDA v Uni of Southampton
actual devisor = person who came up with the inventive concept (the heart of the invention)
Henry Bros v MOD
if invention is a combination of elements
inventor = combiner (not inventor for each bit)
Yeda Research v rHONE
PRESUME APPLICANT IS INVENTOR
- if dispute: ask who the actual devisor is
court can resolve deadlocks
Hughes v Paxman
comptroller can resolve deadlock
confirmed Yeda
Greater Glasgow Application
doctor invented something to make treating patients faster
- not part of normal course of duties
- not employed to invent
DOCTOR OWNED PATENT
LIFFE Administration
COE can help determine normal course of duties
- can also look at what duties are in practice
HERE: expectation of invention
Harris’s Patent (s.38(1)a)
NOT normal course of duties
- work was non-inventive tasks
- non-creative, routine application
- no research laboratory, not involved in R&D
NOT employed to invent
- R turned E’s suggestions before
Harris Patent (s.38(1)b)
NOT special obligation
- no share of business profit
- cannot sign off holding request
- couldn’t hire staff
Staeng’s Patent
YES special obligation
- senior employee
- board meetings
- control over budget
- party to company’s profit bonus scheme
Kelly v GE
s.40 gives compensation to employees if OUTSTANDING BENEFIT
- this is rare
- got it in this case (gave R leverage in corporate deals)
- got 2%
MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY SIGNIFICANT
Telegraph & Mills v Rockley
Skilled addressee = a geek
- read all the literature
- forgetful
- not inventive
Lily Icos v Pfizer
SA: “not a real person, he is a legal creation”
- read documents
- understands all languages
- never misses the obvious
- never thinks laterally
Dyson v Hoover
SA: practical interest in subject matter
- more complicated the patent the more knowledge SA knows
SA CAN BE A MULTI-DISCPLINED TEAM
Rockwater v Technip
“nerd”
- no inventive capacity
- forgetful
- shares common prejudice of trade
General Tire v Firestone
CGK of SA is “common stock of knowledge”
Dyson v Hoover
CGK of SA
- vacuum cleaner industry is blind to anything that isn’t a replaceable bag so need that to make a vacuum
Eli Lily
CGK is what is generally known or regarded as a good basis for further action (uni teaching = helpful)
SEB v De’ Longh
plastic skirt used (because used an insulating ring)
CGK includes melting points of plastic and metal and things accepted without question
Generics (UK)
NO NEED TO disclose all the ways product might be made (just need to disclose 1 way)
as long as PSITA can make it with CGK = that’s fine
Mentor v Hollister
SA can be required to do routine trial and error (but not experiments requiring inventiveness)
- no need to disclose ALL things
- i.e. no need to disclose which adhesive to use
Novartis v Johnson
“made from combination of polymer A and polymer B”
each list v long
- SA can be required to do trial and error but patent instructions must inevitably lead to sucess
- here they do not
SA MUST BE ABLE TO MAKE INVENTION WITHOUT UNDUE BURDEN OR INVENTIVE SKILL
Kiren Amgen
claimed method of making EPO
- claimed all methods but only disclosed 1 method
NOT SUFFICIENT
Generics v Warner
assertion that invention works must be plausible and credible
