In this case, the SPC established an adjudicative standard for identifying common technical knowledge (CTK) and its evidence in the relevant technical field. The identification of CTK as well as evidence of CTK may determine the technical knowledge and cognitive capability that so-called persons skilled in the art shall possess, and, hence, is of significant influence on inventiveness assessment at issue.

In this case, the SPC established the standard for accepting supplementary experimental data by CNIPA in patent invalidation process.

In this case, the SPC pointed out that in terms of inventiveness assessment, if a person skilled in the art cannot obtain the biological material claimed in the patent by repeating the preparation method in the reference document, then the claimed biological material shall be identified as being not disclosed by such reference document.

The case concerns the analysis of obviousness, when the prior art teaches structurally and functionally similar chemical compounds, proving a definite range and variables for a solution of stability.  The Appeal Court held that prior art ranges for solutions of structurally and functionally similar compounds that overlap with a claimed range can establish a prima facie case of obviousness. If one of the predictable solutions leads to an anticipated success, the outcome was obvious to try.

This judgment deals with an appeal submitted to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”) that concerns an application of a test of obviousness on a dosage patent under section 3 of the Patents Act 1977. The Court held that the inventiveness of dosage patent claims needs to be determined on a case by case basis and that the routine nature of the research that resulted in the discovery of a lower efficient dose undermines the inventiveness of the claims.

In this case Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd challenged the validity of Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Inc’s patent for the drug Viagra. Teva stated that Pfizer had not met the disclosure requirements set out in the Canadian Patent Act. The main issue on appeal was whether Pfizer had failed to properly disclose its invention when it obtained the patent for Viagra.

This case addresses the distinction between the requirements to disclose an invention to the public in general terms (enablement) and the separate requirement to disclose the best mode of carrying out the invention. The district court found the patents at issue invalid due to lack of enablement. The United States Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court, but on different legal grounds, i.e. due to the failure to disclose the best mode of practicing the invention.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a prior art to be an anticipation must bear within its four corners adequate directions for the practice of the patent. If the earlier disclosure offers no more than a starting point for further experiments, if its teaching will sometimes succeed and sometimes fail, if it does not inform the art without more how to practice the new invention, it has not correspondingly enriched the store of common knowledge, and it is not an anticipation.

The the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that for the patenting of microorganisms the best mode disclosure requirement does not necessarily entail an obligation by the patent applicant to deposit a sample of the claimed microorganism.

In this case, the European Patent Office Boards of Appeal decided on the patentability of a class of compounds defined by parameters within numerical ranges. It denied the grant of a patent, finding that the invention lacked novelty and an inventive step.