tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5457725845661889708..comments2024-03-28T09:05:22.006+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Teva Tigers v Astrazeneca Lions - obvious to sustain...?Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-83836801954825569492012-03-28T14:52:10.099+01:002012-03-28T14:52:10.099+01:00These cases always turn on the facts and the inter...These cases always turn on the facts and the interpretation of expert evidence. We wouldn't expect a judge to mark university exam papers, but we do allow them to make the big decisions in court. Nothing much can be done about that, except possibly using only court appointed experts. Problem there is, the interpretation of the facts is never straightforward and who is the best expert in each case?<br /><br />I attended one trial as a neutral to listen to expert evidence and the written judgement showed that the judge was swayed more by the 'presentation' of one expert over the other as opposed to listening to what they actually said. The judge found the claim to be non-obvious, whereas if you ask many people skilled in the art they would have had the opposite view. I tested this by asking an expert what they would have done in the specific situation, without knowledge of the case or the invention, and they pointed me straight to the relevant textbook with the answer (the invention) that was cited in court.<br /><br />When you listen to the arguments of some professional experts they will happily give a position that directly contradicts what they teach their undergraduates on a weekly basis.<br /><br />I think the answer is to have an expert adviser to the judge who can understand better the arguments put forward by the expert witnesses.<br /><br />When it comes to formulation cases such as those cited, an overturned patent may be an irritation to the pharmaceutical companies, but they are not unexpected and the value of such patents is given appropriate weight within the company. It would be a foolish in-house attorney who advises the business that a formulation patent provides market exclusivity. That is the sort of advice one expects to receive from a typical private practice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com