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.


Times 21-Jan-1999, [1999] EWHC Patents 269, [1999] FSR 683




Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988

Cited by:

CitedAngiotech Pharmaceuticals and Another v Conor Medsystems Inc CA 16-Jan-2007
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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.163089