Conor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech Inland Another, 2007, EWCA Civ 5
Citation: Conor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech Inland Another, 2007, EWCA Civ 5
Rule of thumb: In a patent application, does a comparison to products already on the market support an application? It is not key evidence, but it can be helpful evidence to allow the Court to understand the development better.
Judgment:
Although the most important factor when considering whether a new product is truly ‘novel’ or obvious is to closely study the product itself, but a direct comparison between other products on the market and the application is an important consideration. ‘... the question is simply, “was the invention obvious”? This involves taking into account a number of factors, for instance the attributes and common general knowledge of the skilled man, the difference between what is claimed and the prior art, whether there is motive provided by the prior art and so on. Some factors are more important than others. Sometimes commercial success can demonstrate that an idea was a good one. In others “obvious to try” may come into the assessment. But such a formula cannot itself necessarily provide the answer. Of particular importance is of course the nature of the true invention itself’, at 45
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.