tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5574309728099452287..comments2024-03-28T11:16:43.146+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Brief from the AdvoKat: Arnold J asks the CJEU to try again in relation to SPCs on combination productVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-72606614328364077062012-10-08T15:18:25.470+01:002012-10-08T15:18:25.470+01:00The points that Mr Justice Arnold mentions raise a...The points that Mr Justice Arnold mentions raise a lot of issues. An infringement test does not sit well with a technical contribution test which operates independently of the claims. Further technical contribution does of course change if the prior art landscape changes (when new prior art comes to light).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-74042437722352051432012-10-04T16:28:02.953+01:002012-10-04T16:28:02.953+01:00Re your comment: "Because Arnold J had heard ...Re your comment: "Because Arnold J had heard a trial on validity of the basic patent....". <br /><br />Er, not quite. There was some evidence about whether or not HCTZ was an obvious diuretic, with the evidence appearing to be that it was, which led Arnold to conclude that there was therefore no invention in Claim 20. However, there was no invalidity attack by the claimant as against claim 1, and no free-standing invalidity attack against claim 20 either. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com