Author: admin

ISSUE:

Whether, to determine the obviousness of a patent claim, the Courts should consider the
(a) prior art
(b) differences between prior art and the subject matter of the said claim
(c) ordinary skill level required of a person in the subject matter of said claim
before considering secondary factors and tests for teaching, suggestions or the patentees motivation?

RULE:

The Teaching – Suggestion- Motivation Test is a method to determine obviousness of inventions, wherein a claimed invention is rendered obvious when either of the three factors may be found in prior art, or when a person with ordinary skill in the relevant field has the knowledge to combine or create the said invention. The Principle can be used to prevent obvious inventions from being patented and avoid “Chalk and Cheese” disputes.

ISSUE:

Whether Transkaryotic Therapies Inc’s EPO excluded the claims of Amgen’s Patent suit due to the difference in manufacturing processes?

RULE:

The Doctrine of Equivalent and Purposive Construction holds that a claim must not be limited to exact and literal interpretations and a party can be held accountable for Patent Infringement even if the device or process of invention does not fall under the literal interpretation of the claim.

ISSUE:

Whether the substitution of a similar material not claimed in the patent itself would save the Defendants from being held liable for infringements?

Does the doctrine of equivalents apply to chemical equivalents in compositions or to mechanical equivalents in devices?

RULE:

The doctrine of equivalents is a legal rule that allows a court to hold a party liable for patent infringement even though the infringing device or process does not fall within the literal scope of a patent claim, but nevertheless is equivalent to the claimed invention.

The doctrine of equivalents is applied to chemical equivalents in compositions or to mechanical equivalents in devices.

ISSUE:

Whether higher forms of life can be considered inventions as “manufacture” or “composition of matter” within the existing definition of “inventions” under Section 2 of the Patent Act?

RULE:

Section 2 of the Patent Act (Canadian Law) states that an invention is any new and useful art, process, or machine or any new or useful improvement contributing to the principle of prior art and enhancing or simplifying processes.

ISSUE:

Whether Cipla’s product, ‘Erlocip’ which is Polymorph B of the compound ‘Erlotinib’ encroaches Roche’s patented compound ‘Erlotinib’.

Whether Roche’s patented compound ‘Erlotinib’ is a legitimate patent?

RULE:

The compound of a drug might exist in different polymorphic designs; nonetheless, any such designs will be subsumed inside the patent.