Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

IP PGDip > Patents > Flashcards

Patents Flashcards

1
Q

CBS v Armstrong

A

Joint tortfeasor: acting in commission of a tort pursuant to a common design.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Credit Lyonnais

A

Joint tortfeason: more than merely assisting - procuring.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Starsight v Virgin

A

Skilled person: unimaginative and no inventive capacity. Can be a team.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

KCI

A

CGK: what the skilled person knows or knows he can look up.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Dyson v Hoover

A

CGK: includes prejudices.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Actavis v Eli Lilly

A

Construction: two limb test. (1) normal interpretation,, (2) immaterial variant.

(a) does the variant achieve substantially the same result in substantially the same way?
(b) with knowledge, is it obvious that it achieves the result in substantially the same way?
(c) would SP consider strict compliance is necessary?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Icescape

A

Construction: limb (1) is purposive. Improved Improver questions are now a requirement.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

L’Oreal v RN Ventures

A

Construction: patentee mentioned x and y in spec, but only claimed x. Did mean for strict compliance.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Kalman

A

Infringement: UK requirement.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

HTC v Nokia

A

Infringement: “without consent” watch out for implied licences.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Tamglass

A

Infringement: s60(1)(b) - knowledge for offers to use requires (1) knowledge inventive concept is used, and (2) knowledge process is patented.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Nestec

A

Infringement: s60(2) - “means essential” question of fact.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Grimme v Scott

A

Infringement: s60(2) - knowledge of the intention of end user will suffice.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

SKF v Evans

A

Defences: s60(5) - private defence only applies if only purpose is non-commercial. If commercial purpose = no.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Monsato

A

Defences: s60(5) - experimental defence can apply where commercial.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Corevalve

A

Defences: s60(5) - experimental defence won’t apply if preponderant purpose isn’t experimental.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Lubrizol v Esso

A

Defences: s64 - prior use can continue.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Henry Brothers

A

Entitlement: can only be raised by the person found to be entitled.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Haliburton v Smith

A

Excluded subject matter: “as such” if has technical effect then OK.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Syngenta

A

Excluded subject matter: essential biological purposes - can patent product (despite contrary Rules - Convention takes priority).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

HTC

A

Priority: an equitable assignment may be sufficient.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Accord

A

Priority: no public interest ground on striking down patents on this ground.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Same Invention

A

Priority: subject matter must “unambiguously derive” from priority application.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Merrell Dow

A

Novelty: “matter” means all documents or information.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Unwired Planet

A

Novelty: “priority date” is the 24 hour period in the time zone where the priority document was filed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

SmithKline Beecham

A

Novelty: no mosaicking.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Qualcomm

A

Novelty: can be confidential even if made to whole field of use.

28
Q

Folding Attic Stairs

A

Novelty: passing glance on private premises.

29
Q

Hozelock

A

Novelty: drew disctinction between (1) info. that public had been given opportunity to access but chose not to, and (2) info. where there was no intention to disclose (so public would not have access despite public).

30
Q

AGA v Occlutech

A

Novelty: clinical trials - not in sufficient confidence = made available.

31
Q

PLG Research

A

Novelty: disclosure to one can suffice.

32
Q

Synthon

A

Novelty: “necessarily result in infringement of patent”

33
Q

General Tire

A

Novelty: “clear and unmistakeable directions”
Obviousness: “very plain” - ordinary meaning.

34
Q

Fujifilm v AbbVie

A

Obviousness: mosaicking allowed where one document cross refers to another.

35
Q

Actavis v ICOS

A

Obviousness: key is inventive concept of the claim, is it obvious? Consider all relevant factors. About routine testing to dosage plateau was obvious to try.

36
Q

Windsurfing

A

Obviousness: general approach for assessing obviousness.

37
Q

Generics v Lundbeck

A

Obviousness: consider all relevant factors.

38
Q

MedImmune

A

Obviousness: “reasonably optimistic expectation of success”

39
Q

Cantel

A

Obviousness: secondary considerations

40
Q

Agrevo

A

Obviousness: is it plausible?

41
Q

Mentor v Hollister

A

Insufficiency: “I can’t do it” - using reasonable trial and error.

42
Q

Mylan v Yeda

A

Insufficiency: “I can’t tell if I’ve done it” more than a fuzzy boundary.

43
Q

Biogen

A

Insufficiency: “I do it a different way”

44
Q

Warner Lambert

A

Insufficiency: is it plausible?

45
Q

Richardson

A

Added matter: did the SP learn anything new from amendments?

46
Q

Wake Forsest

A

Added matter: must cure invalidity or not allowed.

47
Q

Coco v Clark

A

Trade Secrets:

(1) Info. has quality of confidence?
(2) Impart obligation of confidence?
(3) Unauthorised use of such info. to the detriment of person communicating it.

48
Q

Faccenda

A

Trade Secrets: 3 type of employee information.

49
Q

Seagar

A

Trade Secrets: licensor and potential licensee = obligation of confidence,

50
Q

Mustad v Dosen

A

Trade Secrets: right expires once information enters the public domain.

51
Q

EXXON

A

Plausibility: monopoly must be justified by technical teachings.

52
Q

John Hopkins

A

Plausibility/Obviousness: (EPO case) needs to be plausible that patent solves the problem it purports to solve.

53
Q

Agrevo

A

Plausibility/Obviousness: (EPO case) there must be an “inventive step” and it must be plausible that patent solves the problem.

54
Q

Actavis v Novartis

A

Plausibility/Obviousness: plate analogy.

55
Q

Conor v Angiotech

A

Plausibility/Obviousness: (UK case) disclosure in the specification must make it plausible that the invention will produce the claimed technical effect. Hoffman: is a threshold test.

56
Q

Gilead v Idenix

A

Plausibility/Obviousness: the claimed technical effect has to be obvious in light of the teaching of the specification and the CGK, otherwise no technical contribution so no inventive step.

57
Q

HGS v Lillt

A

Plausibility/Obviousness: low threshold, described as “more than incredible” or in some cases an educated guess will suffice. Can use later evidence.

58
Q

Regeneron

A

Plausibility/Insufficiency: is it plausible that it works across the scope of the claim?

59
Q

Salk

A

Plausibility/Insufficiency: (EPO case) considered to be a low threshold: some evidence (experiments/tests) that it would work across the breadth of the claim.

60
Q

Warner Lambert v Generics

A

Plausibility/Insufficiency: Sumption effectively rewrites the test and threshold. “Reasonable prospect that assertion is proven to be ture”.
Hodge/Mance dissenting.
Infringement: no mental element of s60(1)(c) in Swiss form claims. “Outward packaging test.”
Infringement: process protected by Swiss form claims is limited to manufacture. Not pharmacists, etc.

61
Q

Catnic

A

Construction: “pith and marrow”

62
Q

Improver

A

Construction: broke “purposive” down into a 3 stage test. Found that strict compliance was necessary (despite contrary finding in Germany).

63
Q

Kirin Amgen

A

Construction: Improver questions are more useful in some cases than others. Fundamentally: what would the skilled person have understood the patentee to have meant?

64
Q

Teva v Yeda

A

Validity gap: Arnold “the link is now severed.”

65
Q

LQwid

A

Validity gap: Birss, I can see room for arguing that it should be taken into account.

66
Q

Technetix

A

Validity gap: Hacon, shouldn’t invalidate, but should be a defence re infringement.

67
Q

Celltech

A

Prosecution history: may be in a different language.

IP PGDip (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions