Novelty Flashcards
Priority date
The date on which the novelty of the invention is judged
Prior Art
is means something which existed in the state of the art before the priority date of the invention
Anticipated
This means some piece of prior art exists which affects the novelty of the invention
Asahi’s Application [1991]
Prior art will anticipate an invention if it provides an enabling disclosure.
Key terms: Basic requirements
Synthon v SmithKline [2005]
The two elements:
Disclosure; and
Enablement
Lord Hoffmann: ”the matter relied upon as prior art must disclose subject-matter which, if performed, would necessarily result in an infringement of the patent. That may be because the prior art discloses the same invention. In that case there will be no question that performance of the earlier invention would infringe and usually it will be apparent to someone who is aware of both the prior art and the patent that it will do so. But patent infringement does not require that one should be aware that one is infringing….It follows that, whether or not it would be apparent to anyone at the time, whenever subject-matter described in the prior art is capable of being performed and is such that, if performed, it must result in the patent being infringed, the disclosure condition is satisfied”
“Enablement means that the ordinary skilled person would have been able to perform the invention which satisfies the requirement of disclosure.”
“In the case of a low-tech invention (for example a simple agricultural machine…) the simple disclosure of the invention will probably be enough to enable the skilled person to perform it. By contrast in the case of a high-tech invention in the field of pharmaceutical science the bald assertion of the existence of the invention may have to be accompanied by detailed disclosure enabling the skilled person to perform it”
Key terms: Basic requirements, infringement test, enablement
Hill v Evans (1862)
“the antecedent statement must be such that a person of ordinary knowledge of the subject would at once perceive, understand, and be able to practically to apply the discovery…If something remains to be ascertained which is necessary for the useful application of the discovery, that affords sufficient room for another valid patent”
Key terms: Disclosure
General Tire & Rubber v Firestone Tyre & Rubber (1972)
“The earlier publication must…be interpreted at the date of its publication, having regard to the surrounding circumstances which then existed, and without regard to subsequent events… If the earlier publication, so construed, discloses the same device as the device which the patentee by his claim…asserts that he has invented, the patentee’s claim has been anticipated, but not otherwise”
Key terms: Disclosure
PLG Research Ltd v Ardon [1993]
“to form part of the state of the art, the information given by the use must have been available to at least one member of the public who was free in law and equity to use it”
Key terms: Disclosure
Bristol Myers Co’s App [1969]
“if the information, whether in documentary form or in the form of the invention itself, has been communicated to a single member of the public without inhibiting fetter that is enough to amount to a making available to the public…”
Key terms: Disclosure
Lux Traffic v Pike Signals [1993]
“it is settled law that there is no need to prove that anybody actually saw the disclosure provide the relevant disclosure was in public.“
Key terms: Disclosure
Folding Attic Stairs Limited v Loft Stairs Company [2009]
There may be a difference between “seeing” and “observing” something.
Key terms: Disclosure
General Tire and Rubber v Firestone Tyre [1972]
SmithKline Beecham v Apotex [2005] FSR 23
A document should be construed as it would be at the date of publication
Key terms: Disclosure
Lord Hoffmann, Merrell Dow [1996]
“section 2(2) does not purport to confine the state of the art about products to knowledge of their chemical composition. It is the invention which must be new and which must therefore not be part of the state of the art. It is therefore part of the state of the art if the information which has been disclosed enables the public to know the product under a description sufficient to work it”
Key terms: Equivalent teaching
Wesley Jessen v Coopervision [2003
A disclosure to a person who does not understand what he or she is told or given; and accordingly can make no further use has been suggested as not being made available to the public.
Members of the public using contact lenses anticipates invention even if did not know the special features of what they were using.
Key terms: enablement
Van der Lely v Bamfords [1963]
The disclosure does not need to be so totally enabling as to avoid “the ordinary methods of trial and error which involve no inventive step and generally are necessary in applying any discovery to producing a practical result”
Key terms: trial and error
