1 / 15

Inventive step – is an objective approach only a dream? The role of indicia in revocation proceedings

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. Introduction Primary tests for inventive step

margot
Download Presentation

Inventive step – is an objective approach only a dream? The role of indicia in revocation proceedings

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

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

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

  4. Primary test for inventive step: France

  5. 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

  6. 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.

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

  8. 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?

  9. 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?

  10. Secondary Considerations: France

  11. 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?

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

  13. 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

  14. Questions and Discussion

  15. Thank you for your attention isabelle.romet@veron.com • www.veron.com • ava@horten.dk • www.horten.dk myles.jelf@bristows.com www.bristows.com

More Related