Topic 2 - Patent Flashcards
Otto v Steel
Disclosure of a patent could be by writing such as a book or article. An invention is no longer new upon such disclosure as provided in Section 1(3)
Windsurfing International v Tabur Marine
Where a boy had used a surfboard before the filing of the patent application, it was held that the invention was no longer new but anticipatory.
Oliver J also gave a four test rule to determine whether an invention resulted from inventive activity.
Van Der Lely v Bamfold
Emphasised the rule of anticipatory invention in Windsurfing supra.
Stahlwerk Becker’s Patent.
It was held that where there has been a marketing of a process or where such process has been published in a manner whereby it can be deducted by a person of skills in the filled, such process is no longer new but anticipatory.
Pall Corp v Commercial Hydraulics
Delivering samples in confidence to people who knew they were secret and experimental did not prejudice the novelty of the invention. Disclosure in circumstances of confidentiality or secret prior use does not amount to making available to the public. Professional advisers lawyers and patent agents are bound to treat information given to them by the inventor as confidential. Details can also be shown to interested parties under confidentiality agreements, essential to secure financial support or to interest a manufacturing company in exploiting it.
Hills v Evans
Westbury LJ in explaining what an incentive activity is held that “the step taken by the investor must be such which no skilled person in the field can easily deduce or understand.”
See also, Lord Diplock in Mansvilles Patent
Proctor v Bennis
The right of the patentee does not depends on the defendant having notice that what he is doing is an infringement
Harvard Oncomice Case
This case concerned the public order and morality of granting a patent. A careful weighing up of the suffering of animals and the possible risks to the environment were placed on one hand while the inventions usefulness to mankind was placed on the other. In this case,the oncomouse work was not immoral or contrary to public policy because it was generally regarded as beneficial to mankind.
Diamond v Chakarabarty
It was regarding the patent of a oil spill eating bacteria in the US.
Bowman v Monsato
It was about the patent of a genetically mutilated seed of soybeans.
Norris Patent
Where there are multiple inventors of a work, the parties who have jointly worke may file for patent as joint or co owners.
Patchet v Sterling
Defining course of employment
Frearson v Loe
Patent does not cover non commercial or non-industrial exploration such as personal amusement.
Jones v Pearce
non commercial experimental exploitation does not constitute infringements.
