Patent Law (UK) - Construction and Infringement Flashcards
An overview of construction and infringement for patents in UK with some elements of European law.
What is the primary purpose of Article 69 of the EPC?
To establish a balance between fair protection for patentees and legal certainty for third parties.
Explanation: Article 69 EPC ensures claims are neither interpreted too narrowly nor too broadly, finding a middle ground for fair protection.
Which case is most associated with the introduction of purposive construction?
Catnic v Hill & Smith.
Explanation: This case introduced the purposive construction approach, interpreting claims in the context of their practical use.
What is the third question in the Eli Lilly/Improver framework for determining infringement?
Did the patentee intend strict compliance with the exact wording of the claims?
Explanation: The third question evaluates whether the patentee intended for the claims’ language to allow for variations.
Indirect infringement requires proof that the supplied means are:
An essential component of the infringing invention.
Explanation: Indirect infringement focuses on supplying key components intended to perform the patented invention.
What characterises the standard of “effective and serious preparations” for prior use rights?
Producing prototypes with clear evidence of market intention.
Explanation: Prototypes intended for commercial use with supporting preparations qualify as effective and serious.
Under Section 125 of the Patents Act 1977, the claims are the sole determinant of the extent of patent protection, excluding accompanying descriptions.
True or False
False
Explanation: Claims must be read in light of descriptions and drawings to determine patent protection scope.
“Purposive construction” implies extending the scope of a claim beyond what is explicitly described.
True or False
False
Explanation: Purposive construction seeks to interpret claims in context, not extend their scope beyond the description.
Indirect infringement can occur even when the means supplied have non-infringing applications.
True or False
True
Explanation: It depends on the supplier’s knowledge and intention, not whether the means have alternative uses.
Experimental use of an invention is only permitted if the experiments are carried out in secrecy.
True of False
False
Explanation: Experiments must relate to the invention’s subject matter but do not require secrecy.
Under the “Bolar exemption,” conducting trials for regulatory approval of generic medicines is not considered patent infringement.
True or False
True
Explanation: This exemption allows regulatory testing for generics without infringing the original patent.
Explain the difference between direct and indirect infringement, providing examples of each.
Direct infringement involves actions like making, using, or selling a patented invention without permission.
Indirect infringement occurs when someone supplies means for putting the invention into effect, knowing it will infringe.
What do the courts consider when applying the concept of “purposive construction”?
Courts consider how a skilled person, with common general knowledge, would understand the claims in light of the description and drawings. Claims are interpreted within their technical context to reflect the inventor’s intention.
Describe the role of the skilled person in interpreting claims and evaluating infringement.
The skilled person objectively determines what the claims mean and whether alleged activities fall under the patent.
They are informed by common general knowledge but lack inventive ability.
What is the significance of the case Eli Lilly v Actavis in determining the scope of patent protection?
This case reformulated the “Improver questions,” emphasising a balance between literal claim meanings and equivalents.
It introduced a structured way to determine whether varying implementations still infringe.
How do permitted acts like experimental use and prior user rights balance innovator and public interests?
Permitted acts allow actions like experiments and continued use of earlier activities without infringing patents.
These exemptions encourage innovation, regulatory testing, and fair use without undermining patent rights.
