The plausibility battleground at the EPO
Velishchuk Yevhen / Shutterstock.com
Despite the shared language, there are tangible differences between the US, EU and UK standards, explain Jeffrey Lewis and Stuart Knight of Foley Hoag.
US law requires a patented invention be nonobvious, ie, a patent may not be obtained “if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious … to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.” 35 U.S.C. 103.
The European Patent Office (EPO), on the other hand, requires that patents be “granted for any invention … provided they … involve an inventive step”; inventive step—like nonobviousness—is defined as “having regard to the state of the art, [the invention] is not obvious to a person skilled in the art.” European Patent Convention (EPC), Articles 52, 56.
The UK adopts similar language. Patents Act 1997, §§1(1)(b), 3; see also TRIPS, Article 27.1 and Note 5.
Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review (LSIPR) tracks the increasing challenges for intellectual property specialists in the rapidly evolving world of life sciences. From gene patents to stem cell research, we provide the very best news and analysis.
To continue reading this article and to access 4,500+ articles, our digital magazines and special reports published for LSIPR subscribers only then you will need a subscription.
If you are already subscribed please login.
Official LSIPR subscribers include:
Allen & Overy
Arnold & Siedsma
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch LLP (BSKB)
Carpmaels & Ransford
European Patent Office
George Washington Law School
Kirkland & Ellis International LLP
Marks & Clerk
NiKang Therapeutics Inc.
Powell Gilbert LLP
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
World Intellectual Property Office
inventive step, nonobvious, Patents, Graham, John Deere, Windsurfing/Pozzoli, UK Manual of Patent Practice, European Patent Office