Manual Labours: Manual of Patent Practice Updated

Those that are fans of the IPO’s Manual of Patent Practice (and let’s face it, who isn’t?), will be delighted to learn (admittedly slightly later than this Kat was originally intending) that this most informative of publications has recently been subject to the latest round in its thrice-yearly update schedule. For those that have not checked the Manual since the end of September, a helpful summary of the bits that may now be different to the last time you looked can be found here.

Highlights include:
  • Updated guidance on the person skilled in the art following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Schlumberger Holdings Ltd v Electromagnetic Geoservices AS [2010] EWCA Civ 819 (noted by the IPKat here) – the manual has also been revised in light of Jacob LJ’s explanation of the issue of long-felt want in the same case.
  • Discussion of clarity of claims using the terms “predetermined” or “preset”: updated in light of the decision in Folding Attic Stairs Ltd v Loft Stairs Co. Ltd. [2009] FSR 24 (a case which, readers may recall, prompted a storm of comments when first blogged by the IPKat here).
  • Also brought within the IPO’s corral is the decision in Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (UK) Ltd v Eli Lilly & Co Ltd [2010] RPC 8 (noted by the IPKat here), in which the Court of Appeal delved into the murky depths of selection invention – asking, in the process, where a wise man would hide a leaf…
  • The sections on supplementary protection certificates has also been updated in light of the decisions of the High Court in Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents [2010] EWHC 1733 (Pat), and that of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the artist formerly known as the ECJ) in Case C-428/08 Monsanto Technology LLC v Cefetra BV et al (the latter was noted by the IPKat here).

A weekend of happy reading awaits...

Manual Labours: Manual of Patent Practice Updated Manual Labours: Manual of Patent Practice Updated Reviewed by Matt on Friday, October 08, 2010 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.