The appellants challenged a finding that their patent for a vascular stent failed for obviousness.
Held: To overcome a judge’s finding in such a case some error of principle had to be shown. No such error was shown and the appeal failed.
Citations:
[2007] EWCA Civ 5, [2007] RPC 20, (2007) 94 BMLR 122
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Biogen Plc v Medeva Plc HL 31-Oct-1996
The claim patented sought to protect a genetic molecule rather than a whole mouse namely that the molecule would, if inserted into a suitable host cell, cause the cell to make antigens of the Hepatitis B virus. A recombinant method of making the . .
Appeal from – Conor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc and Another PatC 24-Feb-2006
The court found the defendant’s patent invalid for obviousness. . .
Cited – Johns-Manville Corporation’s Patent CA 1967
A patent for a method of producing asbestos cement was challenged for obviousness.
Diplock LJ considered that a development should be treated as obvious if ‘the person versed in the art would assess the likelihood of success as sufficient to . .
Cited – Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd Arrow Generics Ltd, Generics (UK) Ltd v Istituto Gentili Spa, Merck and Co Inc PatC 22-Jan-2003
. .
Cited – Istituto Gentili Spa Merck and Co Inc v Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, Arrow Generics Ltd Generics UK Ltd CA 6-Nov-2003
When a party appealed a patent judge’s conclusions as to obviousness of a patent under challenge, that party should put before the court a summary showing succinctly what principles of law the judge had infringed. . .
Cited – Saint-Gobain Pam Sa v Fusion Provida Limited Electrosteel Castings Limited CA 25-Feb-2005
In a challenge to a patent for obviousness: ‘Mere possible inclusion of something within a research programme on the basis you will find out more and something might turn up is not enough. If it were otherwise there would be few inventions which . .
Cited – Haberman and V and A Marketing Limited v Jackel International Limited PatC 15-Jan-1999
The fact that an inventive step was small and simple did not mean it was obvious where substantial other commercial development activity had failed to see the idea. The development was sufficiently inventive to deserve monopoly protection. . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Conor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc and others HL 9-Jul-2008
The respondents had applied for and obtained an order to revoke the appellant’s patent of a stent for obvousness. Though the parties had settled, the public law element required the intervention of the Comptroller General. The House was asked about . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.247933
