In a case where a patent was being challenged for obviousness, the judge was not necessarily obliged to follow the structured approach recommended in the Windsurfing International case. Here the judge had gone straight to the issue at the heart of the case, had properly assumed the mantle of a skilled person, and had asked himself the correct questions. The judge’s decsion should be set aside only if an error in principle could be shown.
Citations:
Times 22-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 939, [2002] RPC 14
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Windsurfing International Inc v Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Limited CA 1985
Testing Validity of a Patent
A patent was challenged where the windsurf board had been shown as a primitive prototype to have been built and used in public by a twelve year old boy. The court set out the four steps required to be taken when ascertaining the validity of a . .
See Also – Instance and Others v Denny Bros Printing Ltd and Others ChD 3-Feb-2000
The dispute arose between parties to without prejudice communications or who had obtained documents from such persons and were commercially connected with them.
Held: An implied agreement would bind them as parties or by reason of the source . .
Appeal from – David J Instance Ltd, David J Instance v Denny Bros Printing Ltd PatC 14-Apr-2000
. .
Cited by:
Applied – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79824
