Synthon BV v Smithkline Beecham Plc [2002] EWHC 1172 (Patents) (19 June 2002)

Synthon BV v Smithkline Beecham Plc [2002] EWHC 1172 (Patents) (19 June 2002)

Experimental evidence is admissible to show that following the process disclosed in a prior unpublished patent application under s.2(3) Patents Act 1977 (Art 54(3) EPC) inevitably produces the product claimed in a later patent; the 'inevitable result' test for anticipation applies equally to s.2(3) as to s.2(2).

Citation
[2002] EWHC 1172 (Patents)
Parties
Claimant: Synthon BV; Defendant: Smithkline Beecham plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Experimental Evidence
Outcome
Application for exclusion of experimental evidence refused; evidence is admissible.
Legal Topics
Novelty, State of the Art, Prior Art, Patent Revocation, Section 2(3) Patents Act 1977, Article 54(3) EPC, Enabling Disclosure
Intellectual Property Patent Law Novelty State of the Art Prior Art Patent Revocation Section 2(3) Patents Act 1977 Article 54(3) EPC +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Synthon BV

Claimant

Smithkline Beecham plc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Experimental Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether experimental evidence is admissible to show that following a prior unpublished patent application inevitably produces the product claimed in a later patent under s.2(3) Patents Act 1977 / Art 54(3) EPC
  2. 2 Whether the 'inevitable result' test for anticipation applies to s.2(3) situations

Ratio Decidendi

Experimental evidence is admissible to show that following the process disclosed in a prior unpublished patent application under s.2(3) Patents Act 1977 (Art 54(3) EPC) inevitably produces the product claimed in a later patent; the 'inevitable result' test for anticipation applies equally to s.2(3) as to s.2(2).

Court Disposition

Application for exclusion of experimental evidence refused; evidence is admissible.

Orders

  • Experimental evidence as to the effect of following the Synthon application process is admissible.