header-logo header-logo

23 March 2012
Issue: 7506 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Patents

Gedeon Richter plc v Bayer Pharma AG [2012] EWCA Civ 235, [2012] All ER (D) 87 (Mar)

It was well established that the task for the court in considering the issue of added matter was first: (i) to ascertain through the eyes of the skilled addressee what was disclosed, both explicitly and implicitly in the application; (ii) to do the same in respect of the patent; and (iii) to compare the two disclosures and decide whether any subject matter relevant to the invention had been added whether by deletion or addition. The comparison was strict in the sense that the subject matter would be added unless such matter was clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the application. Second, it was appropriate to consider what had been disclosed both expressly and implicitly. Third, the idea underlying the prohibition was that an applicant should not be allowed to improve his position by adding subject matter not disclosed in the application, which would give him an unwarranted advantage and could be damaging to the legal security of third parties relying on the original disclosure. Fourth, it was important to avoid hindsight. Finally,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll