Patent - Last Minute Extras Flashcards
General Tire and Rubber v Firestone Tyre
in relation to
Novelty
Document should be construed as it would be at the date of publication
Differences between Windsurfing and Pozzoli
- Pozzoli moves identifying skilled person to first and adds separate substep for identifying common general knowledge
Define notional person skilled in the art
from
Pfizer Ltd’s Patent
He is deemed to have looked at and read publicly available documents and to know of public uses in the prior art. He understands all languages and dialects. He never misses the obvious nor stumbles on the inventive. He has no private idiosyncratic preferences or dislikes. He never thinks laterally. He differs from all real people in one or more of these characteristics.’
Common General Knowledge
Raychem Corp patent
The common general knowledge is the technical background of the notional man in the art against which the prior art must be considered. This is not limited to material he has memorised and has at the front of his mine. It includes all material in the field he is working in which he knows exists, which he would refer to as a matter of course if he cannot remember it and which he understands is generally regarded as sufficiently reliable to use as a foundation for further work
Qualcomm v Nokia
The question is whether the skilled person will consult the text in the relevant respect
Teva v Astrazeneca
Guidance must be kept up to date for modern age of internet where articles/science can be searched.
Generics v Warner-Lambert
Common general knowledge is common general knowledge in the UK
Glaxo Group’s Ltd. Patent
Mosaicing is not permitted unless the skilled person confronted with a particular citation would turn to some other citation to supplement the information provided by the first
Brugger v Medic-Aid
- Long felt need can be indicative of inventive step
- Route can be obvious try even if not sure it will result in success
Haberman v Jackel (trainer cup case)
- Simplicity: Where small and simple step taken with obvious benefits which was under noses of people in the trade was not taken then not obvious
- Where commercial success can be shown to be because of technical merits of invention then it is relevant
Pfizer Ltd Patent
Doing what is obvious can be commercially successful. Commercial success comes into its own as a secondary indication of inventiveness where both the relevant prior art has been available and the need for a solution to a known problem has been sought for a long time. Failure to make the step which is covered by the patent in those circumstances may be some indication that it is not as obvious as it might first appear
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals v Genentech
Receiving major award or prize can be good secondary evidence of inventiveness
FNM Corp v Drammock International
The word ‘for’ means suitable for
Samsung v Apple (Priority)
- UK approach to seeing if priority claim is valid:
- Read and understand through eyes of the skilled person, the disclosure of the priority document as a while
- determine the subject matter of the relevant claim
- decide whether as a matter of substance not of form, the subject matter of the claim can be derived directly and unambiguously from the disclosure of the priority document
Biogen v Medeva
Support is ground for revocation in UK (as subsumed under sufficiency)
Haberman v Comptroller of Patents
Legitimate to regenerate priority date by withdrawing and refiling application
Warner-Jenkinson v Hilton Davis (USA)
Triple Identity Test
- Substantially the same function
- Substantially the same way
- Substantially the same result
USA Morality Exception
Invention should have moral utitlity (but has not been applied since 1940s)
