tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7971822676234134780..comments2024-03-19T08:36:55.274+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Two bites and you're outVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-12365949404885322382010-02-17T20:10:23.882+00:002010-02-17T20:10:23.882+00:00Duff patent, correct result, shame that the reason...Duff patent, correct result, shame that the reasoning went off on a frolic. The UK courts have appeared to have been inching towards a EPO style approach to obviousness following Kitchin's multifactorial approach in Generics v Lundbeck getting approved by H o L / Hoffmann in Conor v Angiotech, but we are back to square one again. (Pozzoli is a sideshow - it was merely RJ getting his oar in to re-state Windsurfing-style obviousness before the House of Lords overturned him in Conor v Angiotech, which by the way makes no mention of Pozzoli). It's a shame that a new line in the sand appears to have been drawn between the UK and the EPO. Would be interested to see what the TBA makes of this decision when it is inevitably waved around at the EPO in the forthcoming appeal...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-61122519592708556782010-02-17T17:43:13.769+00:002010-02-17T17:43:13.769+00:00You are completely correct. Jacob should be ashame...You are completely correct. Jacob should be ashamed of how ignorant this decision makes him look. He should call up his old mate Gerald Paterson and take a tutorial. Or go on an EQE revision course. He sits in London and criticises the PSA even though he evidently doesn't understand it. The EPO judges in Munich will read his decision and be reinforced in their views that the UK courts can't be trusted. RJ's the person most in favour of a consistent EP-wide approach so he should be particularly ashamed of ignorant decisions like this one. Maybe the end result is correct (I don't know the case) but the route he took to get there is wrong wrong wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-2686205185464969452010-02-17T16:59:44.008+00:002010-02-17T16:59:44.008+00:00I have to say that this is an instant knee-jerk re...I have to say that this is an instant knee-jerk reaction. I need more time to digest Jacob LJ on "could/would" but already I'm disappointed (even embarrassed) by paragraph 36, on the obvious plate and para 35 on the inventive cup. Robin Jacob confidently asserts that EPO-PSA can't handle either of them. I think it can handle both of them in good multi-factorial (para 41) style, with dexterity and aplomb, and in a way to which the man skilled in the art can enthusiastically relate.<br /><br />Before we go any further down this road, can't EWCA just extend an informal and discreet invitation to some competent TBA Chairman, of UK nationality, to provide it with a little private tutorial on EPO-PSA?<br /><br />I too have a huge criticism of EPO-PSA. It is this. The EPO has made it so simple and elegant that patent experts outside the EPO filing and prosecution circles decide that they know it and understand it without having to go to the trouble of studying it. How many readers have had the experience of talking to American patent lawyers who confidently assert that there is no need to walk through EPO-PSA because they already have a full understanding of it, but then they show, in their subsequent writings and utterances, that they haven't the foggiest clue how it works in real life cases?<br /><br />I hope this won't be the last comment on this thread.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-35158049880497942592010-02-17T14:01:04.058+00:002010-02-17T14:01:04.058+00:00I personally prefer this kind of lion in a bath ;-...I personally prefer this kind of lion in a bath ;-)<br /><br />http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_i3fBWGBW6fs/Szf5aqVIaOI/AAAAAAAAAFk/ay4UHAyPqBA/s1600-h/Animal+Whisperer+taking+a+bath+with+lion.jpgJKnoreply@blogger.com