tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1937355307599508721..comments2024-03-18T17:10:35.838+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Novartis AG & Cibavision AG v. Johnson & Johnson [2010] EWCA Civ 1039Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-86313859020101952042010-10-04T22:51:44.849+01:002010-10-04T22:51:44.849+01:00Read this Decision keeping in mind that the patent...Read this Decision keeping in mind that the patentee successfully bamboozled several mainland European jurisdictions. Latterly, the EPO seems to have grasped it, that there is (pace US Judge Rich)a balance to be struck, between good patents (that deliver to the public something which it never had before) and bad patents (that take away from the public what it already had). It is English Decisions like this that remind national patent judges in continental European jurisdictions (where patent enforcement is less feared) of the importance of distinguishing between good patents and bad. Indeed, I get the impression that Robin Jacob is writing with these very judges in mind as his most important readers.<br /><br />An alternative explanation for the continental balls-up is that, over there, J&J employed less than effective legal teams. But, knowing J&J, I don't believe that for a minute.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-17585049205932219132010-10-01T12:33:16.799+01:002010-10-01T12:33:16.799+01:00It seems that the court's distain for 'par...It seems that the court's distain for 'parameteritis' in patent claims is coming to the fore here - see the "something fishy" and "fishier" comments in paragraphs 43 to 45 of the judgment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com