• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>International review of intellectual property and competition law >'Actavis v. ICOS'
【24h】

'Actavis v. ICOS'

机译：“Actavis诉ICOS'

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In addressing the statutory question of obviousness in Sec. 3 of the 1977 UK Patents Act it is common for English courts to adopt the so-called Windsurfing/Pozzoli structure. An alternative approach which the EPO often adopts is the so-called “problem-and-solution approach”. While both approaches focus on the inventive concept put forward in the claims, neither approach should be applied in a mechanistic way. The question of obviousness must be considered on the facts of each case.Factors which can be relevant in addressing the question of obviousness include the following:First, it is relevant to consider whether at the priority date something was “obvious to try”, in other words whether it was obvious to undertake a specific piece of research which had a reasonable or fair prospect of success. The relevance of the “obvious to try” consideration and its weight when balanced against other relevant considerations depend on the particular facts of the case.Secondly, it follows that the routine nature of the research and any established practice of following such research through to a particular point may be a relevant consideration.Thirdly, the burden and cost of the research programme is relevant.Fourthly, the necessity for and the nature of the value judgments which the skilled team would have in the course of a testing programme are relevant considerations.Fifthly, the existence of alternative or multiple paths of research will often be an indicator that the invention contained in the claim or claims was not obvious.Sixthly, the motive of the skilled person is a relevant consideration. The notional skilled person is not assumed to undertake technical trials for the sake of doing so but rather because he or she has some end in mind. The absence of a motive to take the allegedly inventive step makes an argument of obviousness more difficult.Seventhly, the fact that the results of research which the inventor actually carried out are unexpected or surprising is a relevant consideration as it may point to an inventive step.Eighthly, one must not use hindsight, which includes knowledge of the invention, in addressing the statutory question of obviousness.Ninthly, it is necessary to consider whether a feature of a claimed invention is an added benefit in a context in which the claimed innovation is obvious for another purpose.A tenth consideration is the nature of the invention. The possibility that a dosage patent with such claims may be valid has been recognized both by the EPO and in the United Kingdom courts.In the absence of a legal error by the trial judge the Court of Appeal is justified in differing from a trial judge’s assessment of obviousness if the appellate court were to reach the view that the judge’s conclusion was outside the bounds within which reasonable disagreement is possible.
机译：在解决秒中的明显质象问题。 1977年英国专利法案中的3项，英语法院常常采用所谓的风帆冲浪/波佐结构。 ePO通常采用的替代方法是所谓的“问题和解决方法”。虽然这两种方法专注于所述权利要求所述的本发明构思，但既不应以机械方式应用任何方法。明显的问题必须考虑到每个案件的事实。在解决明显的问题中，必须有关的情况包括以下内容：首先，考虑在优先日期是“显而易见的尝试”的情况相关，在其他词语是否显而易见的是进行特定的研究，这具有成功的合理或公平的前景。 “显而易见的”考虑及其重量与其他相关的考虑相比取决于案件的特定事实取决于案件的特定事实。首先，研究了研究的常规性质以及通过对此进行以下研究的任何既定实践特定点可能是一个相关的考虑因素。第三，研究计划的负担和成本是相关的。福州，技术团队在测试计划过程中的价值判断的必要性和性质是相关的考虑因素。第五，替代或多种研究路径的存在通常是索赔或权利要求中包含的发明不明显的指示。显着的，技术人员的动机是相关的考虑因素。本名的熟练人不假设为了做出这样做，而是因为他或她有一些结束而进行技术试验。没有动机采取据称创造性的一步，使得明显的争论更加困难。最重要的是，发明人实际进行的研究结果是意外的或令人惊讶的是，它可能指出了这一步的相关考虑因素在解决明显的法定问题方面，必须使用包括本发明的知识的后智事宜。在索赔创新的情况下，有必要考虑是否需要考虑一个要求保护的发明的特征是一种额外的益处对于另一个目的是显而易见的。第十考虑是本发明的性质。具有此类索赔的剂量专利可能有效的可能性已被EPO和英国法院承认。在审判法官没有法律错误的情况下，上诉法院因审判法官评估而有理由。如果上诉法院达到认为法官的结论超出了合理分歧的界限，那么明显的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号