Skip Navigation

Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases 2003 120(25):855-882; doi:10.1093/rpc/2003rpc49
© 2003 by Crown Copyright
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Crown Copyright

[2003] R.P.C. 49

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PLC'S (PAROXETINE ANHYDRATE) PATENT

Court of Appeal

Before: LORD JUSTICE ALDOUS, LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY, MR JUSTICE LINDSAY May 20–22 and June 25, 20031

[2003] EWCA Civ 872; [2003] R.P.C. 49

Patent—Construction of claim—Whether to resolve ambiguity in favour of patentee—Lack of analogy with deed or written contract—Whether to give "propan-2-ol" its ordinary meaning or read it as "organic solvent"—Ordinary meaning of word gave reasonable certainty and also fair protection for patentee by limiting claim to technical contribution put forward in patent—Whether requirement for enabling disclosure the same for anticipation and sufficiency—Anticipation and obviousness not established.

1 Paragraph numbers in this judgment are as assigned by the court


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.