Synthon filed an international application for a patent. Before it was published, SB filed a similar application in the UK patents registry. Synthon had applied for the UK patent granted to SB to be revoked. Jacob J had found that the reader of the application, seeking to crystallise PMS, would be able to overcome any … Continue reading Synthon Bv v Smithkline Beecham Plc: HL 20 Oct 2005

The question was what was meant by ‘application’ in section 2(3): the request, or the document. It was crucial, because if it meant the document it would have counted as prior art, and would have been novelty-destroying; but if it meant the request, it would not have done because the request had been withdrawn and … Continue reading Woolard, Re A Patent Application: PatC 12 Apr 2002

ICO This decision concerned whether the patent in suit should be restored following a failure to pay the renewal fee. In December 2000 and January 2001respectively two patent applications were filed for the same invention – a British (GB) application and a European (EP) application, the latter designating amongst other countries, GB and claiming priority … Continue reading Orkli (UK) Limited (Patent): IPO 30 Sep 2009

IPO The patent in suit relates to a portable data storage device which can be connected to the USB port of a computer. The Claimant (M-Systems) sought revocation of the patent on the grounds that the patent as granted included matter extending beyond that originally disclosed, was not novel or did not involve an inventive … Continue reading M-Systems Flask Disk Pioneers Ltd and Trek Technology (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Patent): IPO 8 Nov 2006

IPO The claims related to an apparatus for gaming which was networked to a host computer and allocated players to levels each with an associated amount beyond which a player would be given an award. The nearest prior art was the applicant’s published application which lay in the section 2(3) field and had been refused … Continue reading Acres Gaming Incorporated (Patent): IPO 18 Sep 2006

The House considered a case involving the issue of enablement of a particular peptide in a patent application. Held: On the assumed facts that there had been a prior disclosure of the same invention neither the disclosed information nor common general knowledge would have enabled the skilled man to make it. The argument that the … Continue reading Asahi Kasei Kogyo KK’s Application: HL 1991

In each case it was said that the requested patent concerned an invention consisting of a computer program, and was not therefore an invention and was unpatentable. In one case a patent had been revoked on being challenged, and in the other, the appeal was against refusal. Held: Jacob LJ said: ‘the court must approach … Continue reading Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd and others, In re Patent Application GB 0314464.9 in the name of Neal Macrossan Rev 1: CA 27 Oct 2006