tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post2660950301838192771..comments2024-03-29T09:21:58.696+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Tate & Lyle v Roquette Frères: meticulous verbal analysis?Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-90015185781687617462010-10-22T17:23:52.132+01:002010-10-22T17:23:52.132+01:00Let's construe the claims as a reasonable tech...Let's construe the claims as a reasonable technical expert might (dispensing with MVA). Wouldn't she understand that the claim is to a process in which you dose a solution of maltitol with maltotriitol<i> with the intention of</i> influencing crystal growth in the way desired? The question then is, is the intention of the operator a proper way to distinguish from the prior art? Isn't this on a par with practice in computer-assisted inventions, where non-technical distinctions are not taken into account in judging novelty and obviousness?twr57https://www.blogger.com/profile/02330827817659112019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-68391479484004540112010-10-21T23:18:12.197+01:002010-10-21T23:18:12.197+01:00Actually the photos are much clearer in the priori...Actually the photos are much clearer in the priority document ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-67241477195583085512010-10-21T16:50:17.824+01:002010-10-21T16:50:17.824+01:00In the absence of anything in the specification to...In the absence of anything in the specification to provide any meaningful technical limitiation, a claim that reads “The use of maltotriitol to modify or control the form of maltitol crystals” is equivalent to claiming “all practical applications of the discovery that maltotriitol influences the form of maltitol crystals”. Overclaiming, pure and simple. I’m not convinced that lack of novelty was the correct sword with which to dispatch it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-5948564942565291472010-10-21T14:06:04.530+01:002010-10-21T14:06:04.530+01:00Based on the extract shown above Lloyd's reaso...Based on the extract shown above Lloyd's reasoning seems to be in line with Diplock's judgement IMHO.<br /><br />Lloyd contrues the terms according to what the skilled person would have understood the inventor to have meant i.e. a purposive contruction. He is not placing a literal meaning on the terms which is what Diplock warned against in Catnic (wherein from memory 'vertical' was deemed not to be limited to the literal meaning of 'exactly perpendicular')Chris Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-81239692276362941742010-10-21T12:39:38.277+01:002010-10-21T12:39:38.277+01:00The important core meaning, I suggest, is that Lor...The important core meaning, I suggest, is that Lord Hoffmann’s decision in Kirin-Amgen amounts to a repudiation of Catnic. His statement at [34] that “The words will usually have been chosen on skilled advice. The specification is not a document inter rusticos for which broad allowances must be made” directly invites – indeed mandates – “ meticulous verbal analysis in which lawyers are too often tempted by their training to indulge.” This statement was the basis for the observation in Virgin Atlantic that “the skilled reader is taken to suppose that the patentee knew some patent law,” which was relied upon in Tate & Lyle. This proposition reinforces the call to a lawyerly analysis. It was too much to suppose that judges – who are lawyers after all – could restrain themselves indefinitely from interpreting legal documents in a lawyerly manner. Catnic will probably never be expressly overruled, but it has achieved zombie status – Catnic is dead, at least at the appellate level, but its corpse stumbles around in ritual citations.Normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17573687140337856397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-87050200115917680552010-10-21T08:18:10.709+01:002010-10-21T08:18:10.709+01:00Merci, M. Anonymous! I considered using the photo...Merci, M. Anonymous! I considered using the photos, which are from the published patent specification, but they are not very clear.David Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02336561458060095886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-85328069415984695402010-10-20T23:24:47.532+01:002010-10-20T23:24:47.532+01:00If you want to see photographs of the crystals, he...If you want to see photographs of the crystals, here is where to go:<br /><br />http://jurisprudencebrevets.blogspot.com/2010/09/le-juge-francais-face-au-peril-jaune.html<br /><br />The French decision discussed there deals with the question whether preliminary injunction was appropriate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com