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 were patentable. The only research which would be worthwhile (because of the prospect of protection) would be in areas totally devoid of prospect. The ‘obvious to try test really only works where it is more-or-less self evident that what is being tested ought to work.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Scott Baker

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 177, [2005] EWCA Civ 258

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223288