The team is joined by GuestKats Mirko Brüß, Rosie Burbidge, Nedim Malovic, Frantzeska Papadopolou, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy
InternKats: Rose Hughes, Ieva Giedrimaite, and Cecilia Sbrolli
SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Hayleigh Bosher (Book Review Editor), and Tian Lu (Asia Correspondent).

Tuesday, 11 April 2006


Added matter or padded matter?

Mr Justice Kitchin has been busy again. Yesterday he gave judgment in the Patents Court dispute of Ivax Pharmaceuticals (UK) Ltd v Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha [2006] EWHC 756 (Pat), conveniently posted here on BAILII.
Chugai owned a patent for a method of producing a pharmaceutical preparation containing nicorandil, used for treating angina. Claim 1 of the patent described a method of producing a stable nicorandil preparation by mixing nicorandil with a saturated higher aliphatic acid or a saturated higher alcohol, both of which were solid at room temperatures. Ivax sought revocation on the ground of lack of inventive step. Chugai denied that its patent was invalid but (i) nonetheless applied to amend it, saying that the proposed amendment was only intended to distinguish the invention further from the cited art and (ii) counterclaimed that Ivax was infringing. Ivax opposed the amendment on the ground that it added matter over the application as originally filed, contrary to section 76(3)(a) of the Patents Act 1977.

Kitchin J allowed Ivax's revocation claim.

* In considering whether a proposed amendment contained added matter, such matter would be regarded as additional unless it was clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the application as originally filed - even though that disclosure might be implicit.

* On the evidence, the unamended patent was invalid for lack of inventive step: Chugai's problem was that the claims were not limited to the technical advance that it had made, but instead covered work that would have been plainly technically obvious to the skilled person.
The IPKat is pleased to see how cautious the UK courts are when it comes to allowing applications to amend granted and litigated patents. They guard against the danger of moving the goalposts, while allowing amendments that help the players work out exactly where the goalposts are. Merpel adds, the courts must also guard against the effects of after-the-event wisdom. The patent owner gets his chance when the patent is first filed: there must be a jolly cogent reason why he should get a second chance too.

More on angina here and here
Humour and heart disease here
Heart attack jokes here and here

Alive and well

Yesterday the IPKat noted that some of his favourite IP blogs had gone a bit quiet, including LASP (Lawyers Against Software Patents). Well, he has received a cheerful email from a very much alive and well Cristian Miceli, who has been (i) busily working on a project and (ii)contributing to the debate by posting comments on third party blogs. Keep dialoguing, Cristian - it's good to know you're there!

The IPKat has also discovered that The Shape Blog is pretty active, with regular postings. His browser was not being redirected from its old site to its new one. Thanks to Marty Schwimmer for letting him know.

No comments:

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':