The following IP guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
In order to obtain and keep a patent, it is not enough that the invention is new because no-one else had done it before. It is also necessary that the invention is not an obvious modification of what has been done before. Obviousness is important because it is a ground on which the grant of a patent may be refused. Once the patent is granted, obviousness is also a ground on which the patent could be declared invalid and revoked, ie removed from the register of patents. The basis for this is section 3 of the Patents Act 1977 (PA 1977), which says that an invention shall be taken to involve an inventive step if it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art having regard to any matter which forms part of the state of the art. For an introduction to these issues, including some details about the 'skilled person' see Practice Note: Patent invalidity and revocation—Lack of inventive step (obviousness).
The touchstone for deciding obviousness was set out in the Windsurfing case and then modified slightly in Pozzoli v BDMO. The courts have stressed time and again that the Pozzoli test is not to be looked at rigidly as the be-all and end-all of deciding
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Take a free trial
0330 161 1234