Academic Opinion Flashcards
Axel Von Helfield ‘Patent infringement’
Altho Art 69 applied for many years still far from harmony
Equivalency not sold discord
art of deciding a patent is usually too complex and too context dependant to be pressed into algorythm of q’s
Michal Pendleton ‘A Defence of purposive interp’
Without purposive interp we are back to strict construction - not fitting in 21st century
Rebecca Baines
Skilled person is key and choosing the attributable skills is key
Jonathan Turner ‘Purposive interpretation’
Internally inconsistent, against protocol
continued reliance delaying the development of cases needed to elucidate the protocol
Hargreves report
made 10 recommendations to ensure UK has IP framework for innovation
T Blake ‘Patents are a virtue’
Intellectual prop given to those products of human imagination and ingenuity
Daniel Brook
UK approach too complicated allows low quality patents
J Mera ‘Just who is the skilled person’
Little guidance on how relates to obviousness
lead to confusion and difficulties - should be abandonned
lack judgements about high/low level of education - more objective
N Siebrasse ‘The structure of subject matter’
Plagues b y failure to distinguish between rule against abstract claims and field specific exclusions
Broad interp of invention
B Sherman ‘Patent law in Time of Change’
obviousness is important phase
S Lai ‘Future of inventive step’
Test for inventiveness needs to be more infused
J Haye ‘The inventive concept’
Irrelevant how is arrived at it must: be non-obvious and create new result
Paul England
Reform of EU law in UK makes more complex but less problematic if single pan used
Dennis A Yao
enourages innovation and knowledge by providing exclusivity
K Raff ‘The issue of novelty’
welcomes Merrel Dow
Problem with people keeping info secret - nothing stopping witholding info
S Scotcher + J Green ‘Novelty and disclosure’
Value of P law is determined by the competitive advantage
Novelty and inventive reqs are hard to interpret
Nothing gained from strong/weak novelty
Reasons to grant is incentives
tension between protecting and encouraging disclosure
J Mieker
Inherent anticipation should be narrow
prefer a focus on non-obviousness
should turn on whether disclosure is inevitable - high level of enablement
Schmitz
ignores strategic incentive not to patent
Shows the value is large compared to costs
novelty should be weak
A Griffiths ‘Windsurfing and inventive step
Value in structured approach but has deficiencies
Skilled person is symbolic - should avoid dwelling
prior art is dynamic
should recognise the solution to problem clearly
inventive step ensures a P cannot be given too easily
Tuu Jen Chiang ‘The interp of Patents’
Linguistic ambiguity causes uncertainty
need judges to develop normative agreement about claim analysis
H Laddie ‘KA - End of Equivalents’
Easy to think this is last word
believes HoL wrong in KA - scope of patents has to be extended beyond claims to equivalent tech
scope is important
C Fromer ‘Patent Disclosure’
offers a bridge between strong P rights and those who think info should be free
Mario Franzosi
Equivalence is a matter of 1st impression