Skip Navigation

Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases 2006 123(10):323-344; doi:10.1093/rpc/2006rpc10
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
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Crown Copyright

[2006] R.P.C. 10

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PLC'S (PAROXETINE METHANESULFONATE) PATENT

House of Lords

(Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood): July 4, 5, 6 and October 20, 20051

[2005] UKHL 59; [2006] R.P.C. 10

Patent—Revocation—Novelty—Whether anticipation by co-pending application—Whether anticipation by general teaching of earlier application—Patent held valid by Court of Appeal—Appeal to House of Lords—Meaning of "disclosure"—Meaning of "enablement"—Test for enablement the same for anticipation as for sufficiency—Importance of keeping concepts distinct.

Key Words: Enabling disclosures • Novelty • Patents • Pharmaceuticals • Revocation • State of the art

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.