tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post2264809507190238624..comments2024-03-19T06:27:47.905+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Lundbeck lose Cipralex protectionVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-79750064271940174402007-05-10T02:04:00.000+01:002007-05-10T02:04:00.000+01:00Thanks to Sandeep Rathod, I've had a look at the c...Thanks to Sandeep Rathod, I've had a look at the corresponding US decision. Rather interestingly, sufficiency was never litigated there, since it was agreed between the parties beforehand that the battle for invalidity would be about novelty, obviousness, and possible reissue problems due to an error being typographical or not.<BR/><BR/>A potential scorecard in the making for Duncan Bucknell in Australia?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>As an aside, when I read the UK decision, I wondered about the wisdom of a litigant (yet again) employing someone as eminent as Davies an an expert witness by one of the sides; but was even more suprpised to see two such big guns deployed in the US case, one on each side. These really high-powered types are often subject to problems because they are so much more skilled than the skilled addressee: didn't a UK case recently refer to Oxford's Jack <BR/>Baldwin as being unsuitable, since he wasn't even close to being of ordinary skill, but a "world-champion"? And yet his successor (Davies) is involved here... Yes these guys can talk about who the skilled person should be, but they aren't in a particulalrly good position to talk about what the skilled person actually knew. Furthermore, and this seemed to be a problem in the US case (though one would have to dig into the transcript to be sure), such high fliers can be criticised because they haven't done any actual experiments "themselves" for so long - they head their research efforts, but the leg-work is done by post-docs etc. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Regards, LukeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-61784684345995494852007-05-08T21:30:00.000+01:002007-05-08T21:30:00.000+01:00...oh, and I disagree with Merpel. I think you ca......oh, and I disagree with Merpel. I think you can blame the patentee for trying it on, at least in some cases. Under the old English law, those who made covetous claims used not to be allowed to amend. And overbroad claims attract oppositions. But Examiners have the prime responsibility here, particularly since S84 is not available after grant. Patentees should never be allowed to distinguish their inventions solely by the result to be obtained.twr57https://www.blogger.com/profile/02330827817659112019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-74865591341760967802007-05-08T12:46:00.000+01:002007-05-08T12:46:00.000+01:00The reasoning in this case should definitely apply...The reasoning in this case should definitely apply to the GM soybeans (and it will be interesting to see if the Appeal Board take the same line). GM soybeans were an obvious target, and any contribution could only be in providing a process to make them. If I remember correctly, we actually cited Lord Hoffmann in Biogen in the course of the opposition proceedings. It's usually different with pharmaceuticals - they may be structurally obvious, but until you've actually made them, you can't verify their specific value: and they will normally have some specific problem-solving advantage. But the 'problem and solution' approach really demonstrates the vacuity of the GM product claims: "Problem - find a way to make GM soya: Solution - GM soya!" Again, unlike a specific novel pharmaceutical, GM soya (as a class) has no specific improved utility compared with ordinary soya (though of course particular GM genes may add extremely useful properties). But it's much more difficult to argue that a claim is disproportionate after grant, as S84 is no longer available.twr57https://www.blogger.com/profile/02330827817659112019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-49237223957285743792007-05-08T11:10:00.000+01:002007-05-08T11:10:00.000+01:00If you would like to email them to theIPKat [at] g...If you would like to email them to theIPKat [at] gmail [dot] com, he will happily make them more widely available.David Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02336561458060095886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-46337026808792068032007-05-08T09:31:00.000+01:002007-05-08T09:31:00.000+01:00I have documents from the US Dist. Ct. proceedings...I have documents from the US Dist. Ct. proceedings.<BR/>Do revert to rathodsandeep [at] gmail [dot] comGenericIPguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11496346005259927408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-89014711536969660122007-05-08T05:37:00.000+01:002007-05-08T05:37:00.000+01:00Does anybody have a web-accessible copy of the US ...Does anybody have a web-accessible copy of the US District Court of Delaware's judgement from last year affirming validity over there? I'd like to see how the two cases compare.<BR/><BR/>I note that once again the skilled address is said to have no inventive capability here; cf. the pronouncement in KSR that a PHOSITA in the States is supposed to have ordinary creativity. Is there supposed to be a distiction between "creativity" and "inventiveness"? Or does KSR make a US PHOSITA a fundamentally different creature from the UK skilled addressee?<BR/><BR/>Regards, LukeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com