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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll