Academic Opinion

Question 1

Axel Von Helfield ‘Patent infringement’

Answer 1

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

Question 2

Michal Pendleton ‘A Defence of purposive interp’

Answer 2

Without purposive interp we are back to strict construction - not fitting in 21st century

Question 3

Rebecca Baines

Answer 3

Skilled person is key and choosing the attributable skills is key

Question 4

Jonathan Turner ‘Purposive interpretation’

Answer 4

Internally inconsistent, against protocol

continued reliance delaying the development of cases needed to elucidate the protocol

Question 5

Hargreves report

Answer 5

made 10 recommendations to ensure UK has IP framework for innovation

Question 6

T Blake ‘Patents are a virtue’

Answer 6

Intellectual prop given to those products of human imagination and ingenuity

Question 7

Daniel Brook

Answer 7

UK approach too complicated allows low quality patents

Question 8

J Mera ‘Just who is the skilled person’

Answer 8

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

Question 9

N Siebrasse ‘The structure of subject matter’

Answer 9

Plagues b y failure to distinguish between rule against abstract claims and field specific exclusions
Broad interp of invention

Question 10

B Sherman ‘Patent law in Time of Change’

Answer 10

obviousness is important phase

Question 11

S Lai ‘Future of inventive step’

Answer 11

Test for inventiveness needs to be more infused

Question 12

J Haye ‘The inventive concept’

Answer 12

Irrelevant how is arrived at it must: be non-obvious and create new result

Question 13

Paul England

Answer 13

Reform of EU law in UK makes more complex but less problematic if single pan used

Question 14

Dennis A Yao

Answer 14

enourages innovation and knowledge by providing exclusivity

Question 15

K Raff ‘The issue of novelty’

Answer 15

welcomes Merrel Dow

Problem with people keeping info secret - nothing stopping witholding info

Question 16

S Scotcher + J Green ‘Novelty and disclosure’

Answer 16

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

Question 17

J Mieker

Answer 17

Inherent anticipation should be narrow
prefer a focus on non-obviousness
should turn on whether disclosure is inevitable - high level of enablement

Question 18

Schmitz

Answer 18

ignores strategic incentive not to patent
Shows the value is large compared to costs
novelty should be weak

Question 19

A Griffiths ‘Windsurfing and inventive step

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Tuu Jen Chiang ‘The interp of Patents’

Answer 20

Linguistic ambiguity causes uncertainty

need judges to develop normative agreement about claim analysis

Question 21

H Laddie ‘KA - End of Equivalents’

Answer 21

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

Question 22

C Fromer ‘Patent Disclosure’

Answer 22

offers a bridge between strong P rights and those who think info should be free

Question 23

Mario Franzosi

Answer 23

Equivalence is a matter of 1st impression