References: [2004] EWHC 2107 (Pat), [2005] RPC 220
Links: Bailii
Coram: Laddie J
Disclosure and enablement are distinct concepts in patents law, each of which has to be satisfied and each of which has its own rules. As to sufficiency: ‘In my view, devising an invention and providing enabling disclosure are two quite different things. Although both may be necessary to secure valid protection, as section 14 of the Act shows, they relate to different aspects of the law of patents. It is very possible to make a good invention but to lose one’s patent for failure to make an enabling disclosure. The requirement to include an enabling disclosure is concerned with teaching the public how the invention works, not with devising the invention in the first place.’
In the phrase ‘the actual deviser of the invention’, the word ‘actual’ denotes a contrast with a deemed or pretended deviser of the invention;the natural person who ‘came up with the inventive concept.’
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Synthon Bv -v- Smithkline Beecham Plc HL (Bailii, [2005] UKHL 59, House of Lords, [2006] RPC 10, [2006] 1 All ER 685)
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 . . - Appeal from – IDA Ltd and others -v- The University of Southampton and others CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 145, Times 31-Mar-06, [2006] RPC 21)
The claimants sought sole ownership of a patent.
Held: The judge had erred when he reversed the decision of the hearing officer that the claimant was sole owner of the patent. The court expressed its regret that the matter had not been . . - Cited – Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd -v- Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and others HL (Bailii, [2007] UKHL 43, Times 30-Oct-07)
The claimants said that the defendant had misused confidential information sent to him to found an application for a patent, claiming wrongly to have been its inventor. The claimant appealed a refusal by the court to allow amendments to the . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 21-Nov-15 Ref: 227182