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.

This case concerned the condition of non-obviousness as a prerequisite for patentability. The Supreme Court of the United States (hereinafter: the Court) reinforced the objective analysis approach for applying 35 U.S.C. §103 (i.e. the domestic provision on non-obviousness) as it was established with the three determining factors in Graham v. John Deere.

The Court of Appeal confirmed the invalidity of a patent on a pharmaceutical dosing regimen based on obviousness.

In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the element of non-obviousness must be assessed with the help of the following factors: (1) the scope and content of prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the concerned art.  Furthermore, secondary considerations may be commercial success, long felt but unresolved needs or the failure of others to find a solution.

In this case, the Supreme Court of Appeals interpreted the claims of a pharmaceutical divisional patent and examined its novelty and inventive step. The Court also provided guidance on the admissibility of divisional patents under South African law.

The Court of the Commissioner of Patents in this decision focused on two main issues: (1) the protection of new medical uses of known products under South African patent law and (2) the requirements for prior art to destroy novelty by anticipation.