Degree of Novelty Required before patent grant
The court set out the test for novelty required to be established before a patent could properly be granted: ‘To determine whether a patentee’s claim has been anticipated by an earlier publication it is necessary to compare the earlier publication with the patentee’s claim. The earlier publication must, for this purpose, be interpreted as at the date of its publication, having regard to the relevant surrounding circumstances which then existed, and without regard to subsequent events. The patentee’s invention must similarly be construed as at its own date of publication having regard to the relevant surrounding circumstances then existing. If the earlier publication, so construed, discloses the same device as the device which the patentee by his claim, so construed, asserts that he has invented, the patentee’s claim has been anticipated, but not otherwise. In such circumstances the patentee is not the true and first inventor of the device and his claimed invention is not new . .
The earlier publication and the patentee’s claim must each be construed as they would be at the respective relevant dates by a reader skilled in the art to which they relate having regard to the state of knowledge in such art at the relevant date. The construction of these documents is a function of the court, being a matter of law, but, since documents of this nature are almost certain to contain technical material, the court must, by evidence, be put in the position of a person of the kind to whom the document is addressed, that is to say, a person skilled in the relevant art at the relevant date. If the art is one having a highly developed technology, the notional skilled reader to whom the document is addressed may not be a single person but a team, whose combined skills would normally be employed in that art in interpreting and carrying into effect instructions such as those which are contained in the document to be construed. We have already described the composite entity deemed to constitute the notional skilled addressee.
When the prior inventor’s publication and the patentee’s claim have respectively been construed by the court in the light of all properly admissible evidence as to technical matters, the meaning of words and expressions used in the art and so forth, the question whether the patentee’s claim is new for the purposes of section 32(1)(e) falls to be decided as a question of fact. If the prior inventor’s publication contains a clear description of, or clear instructions to do or make, something that would infringe the patentee’s claim if carried out after the grant of the patentee’s patent, the patentee’s claim will have been shown to lack the necessary novelty, that is to say, it will have been anticipated. The prior inventor, however, and the patentee may have approached the same device from different starting points and may for this reason, or it may be for other reasons, have so described their devices that it cannot be immediately discerned from a reading of the language which they have respectively used that they have discovered in truth the same device; but if carrying out the directions contained in the prior inventor’s publication will inevitably result in something being made or done which, if the patentee’s patent were valid, would constitute an infringement of the patentee’s claim, this circumstance demonstrates that the patentee’s claim has in fact been anticipated.
If on the other hand, the prior publication contains a direction which is capable of being carried out in a manner which would infringe the patentee’s claim, but would be at least as likely to be carried out in a way which would not do so, the patentee’s claim will not have been anticipated, although it may fail on the ground of obviousness. To anticipate the patentee’s claim the prior publication must contain clear and unmistakeable directions to do what the patentee claims to have invented . . A signpost, however clear, upon the road to the patentee’s invention will not suffice. The prior inventor must be clearly shown to have planted his flag at the precise destination before the patentee.’
Sachs, Buckley and Orr LJJ
[1972] RPC 457, (1971) 1A IPR 121
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Flour Oxidizing Co Ltd v Carr and Co Ltd 1908
Application was made for a patent for using an apparatus previously disclosed as suitable for a different use.
Held: Parker J said: ‘But where the question is solely a question of prior publication, it is not, in my opinion, enough to prove . .
Cited – BTH Co Ltd v Metropolitan Vickers Electrical Co Ltd 1928
Lord Dunedin construed the claim in question and proceeded to consider the Tesla Patent, the alleged anticipation of the patent claim: ‘Now that being my view of the Claim, I turn to Tesla, and what I have to ask myself is this – Would a man who was . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – General Tire v Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company Limited HL 1975
The object of damages is to compensate for loss or injury. The general rule for ‘economic’ torts is that the measure is that sum of money which will put the injured party in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the . .
Cited – Rocky Mountain Traders Limited and Hewlett Packard Gmbh; Westcoast Limited and Fellowes Manufacturing (UK) Limited CA 20-Dec-2000
The claimant appealed an order finding its patents for mechanisms for labelling CDs invalid for obviousness.
Held: the judge had applied the correct tests for obviousness, and the view taken by the judge of the expert evidence was not open to . .
Cited – Synthon Bv v Smithkline Beecham Plc HL 20-Oct-2005
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 . .
Cited – W L Gore and Associates Gmbh v Geox Spa PatC 7-Oct-2008
The claimants sought a declaration of non-infringement of four patents relating to waterproof fabrics for shoes.
Held: The patents could not be set as invalid for obviousness. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Leading Case
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.188260
