Inventive step – is an objective approach only a dream? The role of indicia in revocation proceedings 2 December 2011 Isabelle Romet, Véron & Associés.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
H I R S C H & P A R T N E R S A v o c a t S o l i c i t o r R e c h t s a n w a l t CHEMICAL INVENTIONS IN FRANCE Recent decisions and case law Dr Denis.
Advertisements

Chapter 12: Supreme Court Decision Making
Design Case Law of the Court of Justice.
Denmark v. Norway CASE CONCERNING MARITIME DELIMITATION IN THE AREA BETWEEN GREENLAND AND JAN MAYEN.
The German Experience: Patent litigation and nullification cases
1 Examination Standard of Inventive Step in Taiwan Tony C. H. Lin Patent Attorney APAA Taiwan Group Lee and Li, Attorneys-at-Law November 18, 2007 in Adelaide.
1 Rule 132 Declarations and Unexpected Results Richard E. Schafer Administrative Patent Judge Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
The economic impact of migration: UK and the West Midlands George Windsor West Midlands Economic Forum, October 2013.
The Role of Patent Attorneys
Invention Spotting – Identifying Patentable Inventions Martin Vinsome June 2012.
Engineering Design Rubric Dimensions 1, 2 and 7.
Intellectual Property March 4, 2015 Don Keach Director, Intellectual Property Development and Technology Transfer Office Copyright University of Kentucky.
P A T E N T A T T O R N E Y S The EPO‘s approach in assessing inventive step for antibody claims Dr. Andreas Hübel M I C H A L S K I H Ü T T E R M A N.
ISMT 520 Lecture #6: Protecting Technical and Business Process Innovations Dr. Theodore H. K. Clark Associate Professor and Academic Director of MSc Programs.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School March 3, 2008 Patent - Nonobviousness.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 16, 2009 Patent – Novelty.
Integration of Regulatory Impact Assessment into the decision making process in the Czech Republic Aleš Pecka Department of Regulatory Reform and Public.
Meanwhile in Europe: HGS Inc v Eli Lilly & co The industrial application test for novel proteins: All in the family? AIPLA Biotech committee meeting 25.
Barriers towards the inclusive design of tourism Tomomi Wakiya Dr Graham Miller Prof. John Tribe University of Surrey, UK.
Tony Dempster Herbert Smith LLP, Partner Claims Management.
Presentation to the Secretariat of the Federal National Council On its Experience in Parliamentary Research & Studies (For the Inter-Parliamentary Union)
The challenges of inclusive education Israel November 21, 2007.
Skills and Life after the PhD Lilian Simones
Dr. TT Bhengu Education Management Association of South Africa 12 th International Conference March 2011 Cape Peninsula University of Technology.
1 LAW DIVISION PATENT DIVISION TRADEMARK & DESIGN DIVISION ACCOUNTING & AUDITING DIVISION YUASA AND HARA LAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING.
Obviousness II Class Notes: February 11, 2003 Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003 Professor Wagner.
EVAL 6000: Foundations of Evaluation Dr. Chris L. S. Coryn Nick Saxton Fall 2014.
Intellectual Property Law © 2007 IBM Corporation EUPACO 2 – The European Patent Conference 16 May 2007 Patent Quality Roger Burt IBM Europe.
- For along time accountants have focused their attentions on measurement of profits (income theory), But in the past five decades : 1.The changing social.
Constitutions and Politics
© Cambridge University Press 2011 Chapter 10 Areas of knowledge – History.
Transcontinental Mediation - German Manufacturers, Foreign Suppliers and US Customers Dr. Ralf Deutlmoser, LL.M. 11 September 2010.
Overview Validity of patent hinges on novelty, utility, and non-obviousness Utility generally not an issue Pre-suit investigation focuses on infringement,
Presented by Avery’s Kindergarten Teachers
Introduction to Economics Dr. SHALINI SHARMA. Introduction to Economics 1. Origin of Economics 2. What Economics is all about? (Concepts & Definitions)
Chapter Eight Creating Ads: Strategy and Process
© 2002, CARE USA. All rights reserved. Applying Quality Standards in Impact Evaluation: Case of CARE Program Quality Framework and Evaluation Policy Ahmed.
© 2008 International Intellectual Property June 16, 2009 Class 2 Introduction to Patents.
1 Patent Claim Interpretation under Art. 69 EPC – Should prosecution history be used to interpret the patent? presented at Fordham 19th Annual Conference.
Olek Pawlowski IEOR 190 Spring 2009 UC Berkeley Explaining the basic concepts of the landmark Supreme Court patent case of KSR vs. Teleflex and specifically.
Social Marketing Social Marketing’s Distinguishing Features Case Studies: Food Thermometer Education Evaluating a Social Marketing Intervention: Cardiff.
Seminar on the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration Evidence & Hearings under the Swiss Rules Belgrade, 9 December 2015 University.
Promoting Deep Learning “A person with a brain full of knowledge is not a teacher … until he or she can convey that knowledge to another person.”
Slide 1 Project 1 Lab 8 T&N3311 PJ1 Information & Communications Technology HD in Telecommunications and Networking Content of this lesson  Final tutorial.
Nonobviousness II: More on Nonobviousness The Scope & Content of the Prior Art Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2002 Administrative: (1)reminder: Federal.
Hildegard Peplau ( ) INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS MODEL THEORY PRESENTED-1952.
Dr. Leslie David Burns, Associate Professor Department of Curriculum and Instruction UK College of Education
. The criterion of inventive step. Definition of Inventive step Sometimes, it is the idea of using established techniques to do something which no one.
Performance Assessment in the Member States of the European Union, Norway and the European Commission Dr Christoph Demmke, Professor of Comparative Public.
Registered Nurse/ Diploma in Higher Education Student Journey.
Introduction Social ecological approach to behavior change
CIS 170 MART Teaching Effectively/cis170mart.com FOR MORE CLASSES VISIT CRJ 422 GENIUS Education Expert/crj422genius.com FOR MORE CLASSES.
Conflict Resolution Program Catholic University College of Ghana Growing a Dispute Resolution System: One View from America Professor Paul F. Kirgis St.
Marketing Research.
Introduction Social ecological approach to behavior change
Co-chairperson of Patents Committee
From Nuclear Safety Culture to Railway Safety Culture
The Role of Patent Attorneys
A comparative study in Saudi Arabia and China
AJS 552 Innovative Education-- snaptutorial.com
CRJ 422 Competitive Success/tutorialrank.com
CRJ 422 GENIUS Lessons in Excellence-- crj422genius.com.
CRJ 422 Education for Service-- tutorialrank.com.
Patentability of AI related inventions
Introduction to Market Research
[Project] Proof of concept presentation Month day, Year
Judicial Training on EU Taxation Law
Best Western Congress Hotel- Yerevan
Strategies and obstacles for innovation, co-creation
Presentation transcript:

Inventive step – is an objective approach only a dream? The role of indicia in revocation proceedings 2 December 2011 Isabelle Romet, Véron & Associés Anders Valentin, Horton Dr Myles Jelf, Bristows

Agenda Introduction Primary tests for inventive step When do secondary indicia come into play? What factors promote / detract / influence an ‘objective’ assessment of inventive step?

Introduction What do we mean by an ‘objective’ assessment? The theoretical ideal How do current national systems cope?

Primary test for inventive step: France

Primary Test for Inventive Step: Denmark Define relevant person skilled in the art Define scope of general knowledge PSA: Shall be used (DK Guide Lines since 1 June 2007) Very few decisions: Supreme Court confirmed PSA approach as per EPO case law

Primary Test for Inventive Step: UK Pozzoli / Windsurfing 1a) Identify the notional ‘person skilled in the art 1b) Identify the relevant common general knowledge of that person 2) Identify the inventive concept of the claim in question (or if not possible, construe the claim) 3) Identify what, if any, differences exist between the prior art and the inventive concept/construed claim 4) Without hindsight, do those differences constitute steps obvious to the skilled man or do they require any degree of invention.

Secondary Considerations: Denmark Very little case law Recent case law follows on EPO case law

Secondary Considerations: UK Number of factors have been considered by courts (helpfully summarised by Prof Sir Robin Jacob at Venice conference): How old is the prior art? How widely distributed? Why was the invention not arrived at before? Was there a long felt want? How many steps from the prior art is the invention? Were others struggling to solve the same problem? How was the invention received? Was the invention a great commercial success?

Secondary Considerations: UK (2) Commercial success in itself raises a number of questions (Haberman v Jackal): What problem did the invention address? How long had that problem existed? How significant was the problem seen to be? How widely known was the problem? What prior art was generally known? What other solutions were previously put forward? Did some external factor hold back solution? How has the invention been received? Is any commercial success due to the technical merit of the invention?

Secondary Considerations: France

What factors promote / detract / influence an ‘objective’ assessment of inventive step?: UK Linguistic: ‘inventive/obvious’ vs ‘erfinderischen/naheliegender’ vs ‘inventive/évidente’ vs…. Cultural Intra-discipline Intra-jurisdiction Systematic nature of proceedings Tribunal Balance of social policy?

What factors promote / detract / influence an ‘objective’ assessment of inventive step?: France

What factors promote / detract / influence an ‘objective’ assessment of inventive step?: Denmark Relative to “creative step” (utility models)? Inventive step (height) vs. creative step Maritime and Commercial Court decision regarding creative step

Questions and Discussion

Thank you for your attention