![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Jushi Group Co Ltd v OCV Intellectual Capital LLC [2018] EWCA Civ 1416 (19 June 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/1416.html Cite as: [2019] RPC 1, [2018] EWCA Civ 1416 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWCA Civ 1416
Case No: A3/2017/1073
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT
HHJ Hacon
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 19/06/2018
Before:
LORD JUSTICE KITCHIN
LORD JUSTICE FLOYD
and
LORD JUSTICE HENDERSON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
|
Jushi Group Co., Ltd (a company registered in the People’s Republic of China) |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
|
|
OCV Intellectual Capital, LLC (a company registered in the United States of America) |
Respondent |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Justin Turner QC (instructed by Bristows LLP) for the Appellant
Iain Purvis QC and Tom Alkin (instructed by Mewburn Ellis LLP) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 09 May 2018
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment Approved
Lord Justice Floyd:
1.
This is an appeal from a decision dated 6 February 2017 of HHJ Hacon
sitting in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court by which he dismissed an
action brought by the appellant, Jushi Group Co., Ltd (“Jushi”), to revoke European
Patent
1 831 118 (“the
patent”)
belonging to the respondent OCV Intellectual
Capital, LLC (“OCV”). The judge held the
patent
was valid and (on the basis of
an admission) consequently upheld OCV’s counterclaim for threatened infringement
in relation to one of Jushi’s products. Jushi appeals, arguing that the judge
ought to have found the
patent
invalid for lack of novelty and obviousness.
The facts
2.
The patent
claims a priority date in December 2004. The invention
claimed is a glass fibre or “strand” for inclusion as reinforcement in other
materials such as glass-reinforced plastic. The American Society for Testing
Materials (“ASTM”) defined a number of standard categories of glass for use in
glass fibre, including the ranges of constituents that make up that type of
glass. In 2004 by far the most widely used category was ‘E-glass’, or electrical
grade.
“1. A glass reinforcement strand whose composition comprises the following constituents in the limits defined below, expressed as percentages by weight:
SiO2 58-63%
Al2O3 12-20%
CaO 12-17%
MgO 6-12%
CaO/MgO ≤ 2, preferably ≥1.3
Li2O 0.1-0.8%, preferably ≤ 0.6%
BaO + SrO 0-3%
B2O3 0-3%
TiO2 0-3%
Na2O + K2O ˂ 2%
F2 0-1%
Fe2O3 ˂ 1%
wherein the composition has an Al2O3 + MgO + Li2O content equal to 23% or higher.”
7.
At [0007] the patent
refers to the conditions under which E-glass can be
fiberized. These are said to be highly advantageous in that the working
temperature is relatively low, at around 1200°C, the liquidus temperature is
about 120°C below the working temperature, and its devitrification rate is low.
9.
At [0012] the patent
acknowledges as prior art U.S.
Patent
4 199 364
(“Neely”). Neely is reported as disclosing an inexpensive glass containing
neither boron nor fluorine which has mechanical properties comparable to those
of E-glass.
10.
At [0014] the patent
explains that, in bulk, R-glass (another ASTM
category) is known for its good mechanical properties, especially as regards
the specific Young's modulus, which is around 33.5 MPa/kg/m3.
However, the melting and fiberizing conditions were more constrictive than in
the case of the E-glass, and therefore the final cost of R-glass was higher.
11.
At [0016] – [0017] the patent
explains the object of the invention:
“Other attempts at increasing the mechanical strength of glass strands have been made, but generally to the detriment of their fiberizability, the processing then becoming more difficult or imposing the need to modify existing fiberizing installations.
There is therefore a need to have glass reinforcement strands having a cost as close as possible to that of E-glass and exhibiting mechanical properties at a performance level comparable to that of R-glass.”
12. Particular attention is drawn to the CaO/MgO ratio at [0022] to [0024]:
“Lime (CaO) is used to adjust the viscosity and to control the devitrification of the glasses. The CaO content preferably lies in the range from 13 to 15%.
Magnesia (MgO), like CaO, acts as a viscosity reducer and also has a beneficial effect on the specific Young's modulus. The MgO content lies in the range from 6 to 12%, preferably from 7 to 9%.
The CaO/MgO weight ratio proves to be an essential factor for controlling devitrification. The inventors have identified that a CaO/MgO ratio not exceeding 2, but preferably greater than 1.3, promotes crystallization of the glass in several phases (anorthite: CaO.Al2O3.2SiO2 and diopside: CaO.MgO.2SiO2, or even forsterite: 2MgO.SiO2 or enstatite: MgO.SiO2) which enter into competition for growth at the expense of the liquid phase. This competition has the effect of limiting the maximum growth rate of the crystalline phases and therefore reducing the risk of the glass devitrifying, and of allowing it to be fiberized correctly.”
13.
At [0028] the patent
explains that “[p]referably” the sum of the Al2O3,
MgO and Li2O contents is “equal to 23% or higher, thereby making it
possible to obtain very satisfactory specific Young's modulus values (of
greater than 36 MPa/kg/m3) while still having good fiberizability”.
Despite the use of the word “preferably”, it is common ground that the skilled
person would understand that this feature has been incorporated into and become
a requirement of the claim.
14.
The patent
also includes a table of results either obtained or
calculated for various compositions of glass. The table includes two
comparative examples, one of which (example 7) is example 5 of Neely. At
[0046] the
patent
claims that:
“[0046] … the examples according to the invention exhibit an excellent compromise between melting and fiberizing properties and mechanical properties. These fiberizing properties are particularly advantageous, especially with a liquidus temperature of around 1210°C, which is much lower than that of R-glass. The fiberizing range is positive, in particular with a difference between T(1og η=3) and Tliquidus of more than 50°C, and possibly up to 68°C.
[0047] The specific Young's modulus of the glass obtained from the compositions according to the invention (Examples 1 to 5) is markedly higher than that of E-glass and also improved over that of R-glass and the glass containing no Li2O (Example 6).
[0048] Remarkably, with the glasses according to the invention, substantially better mechanical properties than those of R-glass are thus achieved, while appreciably lowering the fiberizing temperature, bringing it close to the value obtained for E-glass.
[0049] The glasses according to the invention crystallize in three phases. At the liquidus, the phase is diopside, which is more favourable as it is less refractory than anorthite (Example 6). The maximum growth rate of diopside is lower than in the case of the glass of Example 7 for which the CaO/MgO ratio is 2.14 (a reduction of at least 50%).
[0050] The glass strands according to the invention are less expensive than R-glass strands, which may advantageously be replaced in certain applications, especially aeronautical applications, or for reinforcement of helicopter blades, or for optical cables.
15.
It will be seen that in [0049] the patent
makes a favourable comparison
for the glass of the invention with comparative example 7 (which is example 5
of Neely), pointing out that Neely’s CaO/MgO ratio in this instance is 2.14.
This is outside the range claimed for this ratio in claim 1, at least if construed
strictly (less than or equal to 2).
TABLE IV
Ingredients |
Percent
|
SiO2 |
55-61 |
Al2O3 |
12-18 |
MgO |
4-10 |
CaO |
14-18 |
Na2O |
0.1-1.5 |
Li2O |
0.1-1.5 |
BaO |
0.0-1.0 |
18. Neely goes on to say this (at col.4, lines 7-14):
“In the glass composition of Table IV other substituents may also be present in small amounts typically below 1 percent each. In general, Fe2O3 is present in quantities of 0.1 to 0.5 percent, TiO2 between 0.2 to 0.8 percent, K2O between 0.1 and 0.5 percent and also if the glass composition desired is only a boron-free composition, then a small amount of fluorine up to 1 weight percent can be used in the composition.”
19.
It was common ground that the range of each of the constituents in Table
IV of Neely either fell within or overlapped the corresponding ranges of claims
1, 4, 5 and 6 of the patent.
20.
Neely disclosed six specific examples of glass, i.e. six glass fibres
having constituents present in precisely stated percentages, as opposed to
ranges, and one comparative example. None of the six examples had percentage constituents
which all fell within the corresponding ranges specified in claim 1 of the patent.
Examples 1 and 5 came closest. In example 1 the figure for Li2O was
too high (if 0.9 is treated as being outside 0.05-0.85) and the figure for the
total of Al2O3, MgO and Li2O was too low (again,
if 22.54 is treated as being outside 23 or higher). In example 5, the figure
for the CaO/MgO ratio was 2.15%, whereas claim 1 of the
patent
requires a ratio
of ≤ 2 and the total of Al2O3, MgO and Li2O
in example 5 was 22.88%, compared with a minimum of 23.
The judgment of HHJ Hacon
21.
The judge first considered the correct construction of the features of
the claim which required (a) the ratio CaO/MgO to be ≤ 2 and (b) the
total content by weight of (Al2O3 + MgO + Li2O)
to be equal to 23% or higher. Jushi had contended that the claim used the
“whole number convention”, under which numbers are taken to indicate the
nearest whole number. Under that convention, therefore, the limits of ≤
2 would be taken to include anything from ≥ 1.5 to ˂ 2.5 and the
figure of 23% for (Al2O3 + MgO + Li2O) would
embrace anything from ≥ 22.5% to ˂ 23.5%. On this basis the patent
would lack novelty over Neely’s example 5.
22.
The judge rejected this argument. It was fair to assume that the
patentee
was not intending to claim example 5 of Neely, given its use as a
comparative example. The
patentee
was therefore not intending the ranges to be
interpreted with the benefit of the broadening whole number convention.
23.
The judge then turned to the arguments concerning the overlapping ranges,
as between Neely’s Table IV and claim 1 of the patent.
He directed himself by
reference to decisions of the Technical Board of Appeal (“TBA”) of the European
Patent
Office in T 26/85 TOSHIBA/Thickness of Magnetic Layers [1990]
E.P.O.R. 267 and T 666/89 UNILEVER/Washing Composition [1992] E.P.O.R.
501, in which the TBA asked whether the skilled person reading the prior art
document would “seriously contemplate” applying the teaching of the prior art
in the area of overlap.
24.
Applying the “serious contemplation” test, the judge first identified
the fact that the present case was not concerned with a single range but with
multiple ranges. Table IV of Neely defined 7 ranges which were either the same
as or fell entirely within the ranges claimed in the patent.
However there
were 6 ranges where the ranges merely overlapped. The overlap in these 6
ranges was between 33% and 87%. The extent of overlap between Neely and the
patent
was not simply a matter of multiplying the 6 percentage overlaps
together. Such a purely arithmetical computation yielded a figure of 3.9%.
However, as the percentages were dependent on one another, an increase to one
constituent could exert a downward pressure on another. Once one started to
vary one of the constituents in this exercise, all of the other constituents,
even those where there was complete overlap, would come into play.
27.
The judge rejected these arguments on the basis that the skilled person
would be cautious about varying the constituents of an example which had been shown
to work. The figure of ± 6% had no basis in the common general knowledge, but
had been arrived at “with an eye on the Patent
and how much change to examples
1 and 5 of Neely would be required to bring those examples within the scope of
the claims of the
Patent”.
Professor Gibson had not maintained the ± 6% point
in cross-examination. The obviousness case based on examples 1 and 5 of Neely
was therefore rejected on the evidence.
29.
Finally the judge considered an argument that the patent
was an invalid
selection
patent,
at least insofar as it claimed the area of overlap. He
rejected this argument on the ground that Neely’s Table IV did not contain an
individualised disclosure of anything falling within the area of overlap. Jushi
did not dispute that the glass fibres of the
patent
offered a technical
advantage over Neely’s fibres or argue that this was obvious.
30.
The patent
was therefore valid and Jushi had threatened to infringe it.
The appeal
33.
In summary, Neely disclosed a “compositional space” within which a
person skilled in the art is taught to make glass fibre across its breadth.
Everything within the compositional space was clearly disclosed and could not
be patented
subsequently. In taking into account the impact which small
changes might have on the properties of the glass fibre, the judge had fallen
into the error of not keeping the concepts of disclosure and enablement
separately. If he had focused on the disclosure he would have had to conclude
that there was a disclosure of claim 1 of the
patent.
Construction
36. The principles applicable to the construction of numerical limits were recently reviewed by this court in Smith & Nephew Plc v Convatec Technologies Inc [2015] RPC 32. Kitchin LJ (with whom Briggs and Christopher Clarke LJJ agreed) summarised them as follows at [38]:
“…the approach to be adopted to the interpretation of claims
containing a numerical range is no different from that to be adopted in
relation to any other claim. But certain points of particular relevance to
claims of this kind do emerge from the authorities to which I have referred and
which are worth emphasising. First, the scope of any such claim must be exactly
the same whether one is considering infringement or validity. Secondly, there
can be no justification for using rounding or any other kind of approximation
to change the disclosure of the prior art or to modify the alleged
infringement. Thirdly, the meaning and scope of a numerical range in a patent
claim must be ascertained in light of the common general knowledge and in the
context of the specification as a whole. Fourthly, it may be the case that, in
light of the common general knowledge and the teaching of the specification,
the skilled person would understand that the
patentee
has chosen to express the
numerals in the claim to a particular but limited degree of precision and so
intends the claim to include all values which fall within the claimed range
when stated with the same degree of precision. Fifthly, whether that is so or
not will depend upon all the circumstances including the number of decimal
places or significant figures to which the numerals in the claim appear to have
been expressed.”
37.
In any particular case, therefore, it is necessary to consider the
relevant integer of the claim in the light of the disclosure of the patent,
the
common general knowledge and all other relevant circumstances. It is clear
that the court was not laying down a rule of law as to how numerical ranges
should be interpreted in all cases.
38.
A well-known canon of construction where a patentee
has acknowledged
prior art in his specification was identified by Jacob J as he then was in Beloit
Technologies Inc. v. Valmet Paper Machinery Inc. [1995] R.P.C. 705 at 720:
“There is normally no reason to suppose the patentee
when he
set the limits of his monopoly knew of a particular piece of prior art which is
therefore irrelevant in deciding what those limits are. Of course the position
is different if the prior art is specifically acknowledged in the
patent.
The
purposive construction would lead to a construction of a claim which did not
cover that acknowledged prior art: it can hardly have been the inventor's purpose
to cover that which he expressly recognises was old.”
39.
It is true, as Lewison J pointed out in Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v
Eurocell Building Plastics Limited [2004] 1785 EWHC (Ch), that much depends
on how the prior art is acknowledged. A mere reference to a prior patent
does
not necessarily require the addressee of the
patent
to dig it out and study it
in detail before arriving at an understanding of the meaning of language used
in the claims.
40.
The patent
in the present case undoubtedly recognises the existence of
Neely as prior art. However it goes considerably further. The
patent
specifically
refers to and reproduces example 5 of Neely. Further, the
patent
uses example
5 of Neely as a comparison, and points out that its CaO/MgO ratio is 2.14. It
seems to me that this is a very compelling point in favour of adopting the
narrower construction of the end points of the ranges in the present case. The
purpose of a comparative example is that it identifies something which is
outside the claimed invention for the purposes of comparing it with something
inside it. The skilled person would be bound to compare the composition of
the comparative example with the ranges in claim 1, which he or she can do
without “digging out” Neely. The skilled person would observe that the CaO/MgO
ratio, to which attention is specifically drawn in [0049] of the
patent,
is
more than 2. If whole number rounding is used in the claim it would not exclude
Neely Example 5. Moreover there is no other claim integer which would exclude this
example from the claim if whole number rounding is used. The total content of Al2O3,
MgO and Li2O in Neely example 5 is 22.88, which would be within the
claim if the range is expanded by whole number rounding. The obvious
conclusion that the skilled person would draw is that the
patentee’s
ranges
were exact, and not meant to be broadened by whole number rounding.
41.
If that were not enough, the judge noted (at paragraph [56]) the
evidence of Dr Bingham, that the skilled person would have known, as part of the
common general knowledge, that changes in glass composition, even small ones,
could lead to sometimes strongly non-linear changes in key properties of the
glass. That was a further reason why the skilled person would understand the
patentee
to be intending his values to be exact ones.
42.
Jushi had no satisfactory answer to any of this beyond drawing attention
to the fact that OCV had argued at some points in their case for a wider
construction of the claim. That is a point of no substance. The true construction
of a claim obviously cannot depend on how the claim is deployed by the patentee
in litigation many years after the priority date.
43. I would therefore reject Jushi’s construction of claim 1.
Novelty over Neely on the judge’s construction
45.
An invention is to be taken as new if it does not form part of the state
of the art (Patents
Act 1977, section 2(1)). The state of the art includes,
amongst other things, all matter which has been made available to the public by
written description (section 2(2)). In Synthon’s
Patent
[2006] RPC 10 Lord Hoffmann explained that there are two requirements for a claim to be
anticipated by a prior document: disclosure and enablement. As to disclosure he
explained at [22]:
“… the matter relied upon as prior art must disclose
subject-matter which, if performed, would necessarily result in an infringement
of the patent.
That may be because the prior art discloses the same invention.
In that case there will be no question that performance of the earlier
invention would infringe and usually it will be apparent to someone who is
aware of both the prior art and the
patent
that it will do so.”
46. In general, a broad generic disclosure in the prior art does not take away the novelty of a claimed more specific one: see Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (UK) Ltd v Eli Lilly and Co Ltd [2009] EWCA 1362; [2010] RPC 9 at [28] to [29]. In that case, a broad disclosure of tens of thousands of chemical compounds identified by means of a Markush formula did not take away the novelty of a claim to a single compound. Jacob LJ, with whom the Master of the Rolls and Richards LJ agreed, said this at [30]-[32]:
6.1 Here the Board is guided by the conclusions it reached in its "Spiro compounds" decision T 181/82 (OJ EPO 1984, 401) concerning the novelty of chemical entities within a group of substances of known formula. With regard to products of the reaction of specific spiro compounds with a (C1-C4)-alkyl bromide defined as a group, the Board drew a sharp distinction between the purely intellectual content of an item of information and the material disclosed in the sense of a specific teaching with regard to technical action. Only a technical teaching of this kind can be prejudicial to novelty. If any such teaching is to apply in the case of a chemical substance, an individualised description is needed.
So what one must look for by way of an anticipation is an "individualised description" of the later claimed compound or class of compounds. …
Where you have a patent
for a particular chemical compound
and a prior art general disclosure, performance of the general disclosure
(which means no more than using anything within it) does not necessarily result
in infringement of the
patent.
In this case, for instance, you can
"perform" 235 in any of 1019 ways – only one of them
would result in infringement of the later
patent.”
"[6] The Respondent also submitted in the course of oral
proceedings that, as a matter of law, it was not permissible to cross the legal
borderline between novelty, in the strict sense of a clear and specific
disclosure in a prior document of the particular narrow combination of claimed
ranges in question on the one hand, and the obviousness of choosing such a
combination of ranges from that prior art document containing a disclosure of
the broader range, on the other hand. In this connection the Board wishes to
set out the general legal principles that apply to so-called
"selection" patents.
The most important one is that under the EPC
patents
are not granted for inventions for the sole reason that they are
"selections", but only for new and inventive subject–matter of
certain defined kinds (Articles 52 to 57 EPC). Selection is in fact only a
conceptual tool, used principally in the field of chemical inventions, for
deciding novelty in certain situations, which novelty can, however, only be
decided under the express provisions of Article 54, and in particular Articles
54(2) and (3) EPC. Article 54 (2) EPC defines the state of the art as
comprising "everything made available to the public by means of written or
oral description, by use or in any other way". The term
"available" clearly goes beyond literal or diagrammatical
description, and implies the communication, express or implicit, of technical
information by other means as well. Now it is of course true that in the case
of documents the natural mode of communicating information is by written or
diagrammatical description. However, this is not the end of the matter in
deciding what information content has been made available: cf. G 02/88, OJ EPO
1990, 003, para. 10 of the reasons. One example of the available information
content of a document extending beyond this literal descriptive or
diagrammatical content is the case where the carrying out of a process,
specifically or literally described in a prior art document, inevitably results
in a product not so described. In such a case, the prior art document will
destroy the novelty of a claim covering a product; cf. T 12/81,
"Diastereomers", OJ EPO 1982, 296. It is thus content, express and
implied, rather than mere form, that is decisive of the issue of novelty in
general, and "selection" novelty in particular (cf. T 198/84,
'Thiochloroformates", OJ EPO 1985, 209, para, 4 of the reasons, English
version corrected in T 124/87, "Copolymers", OJ EPO 1989, 491, para
3.2 of the reasons; T 26/85, "Thickness of magnetic layers", OJ EPO
1990, 22, para. 8 of the reasons).
[7] Clearly, the decision on this issue will depend on the facts of each case. Nevertheless, the Boards' jurisprudence has generated certain general principles and broadly applicable concepts, sometimes (erroneously) referred to as ‘tests’. Thus it is clear, (cf. G 02/88 cited above), that matter that is hidden, not in the sense of being deliberately concealed but rather in the sense of being reconditely submerged in a document, will not have been ‘made available’ in the above sense. In the case of overlapping ranges of physical parameters between a claim and a prior art disclosure, what will often help to determine what is ‘hidden’ as opposed to what has been made available, is whether or not a skilled person would find it difficult to carry out the prior art teaching in the range of overlap (T 124/87, OJ EPO 1989, 495, para.3.4). A similar approach adopted by a Board of Appeal (cf. T 26/85 OJ EPO 1990, 22) for assessing the novelty of a claim in a case where overlapping numerical ranges of certain parameters exist between a claim and a prior art document, is to consider whether a person skilled in the art would, in the light of all the technical facts at his disposal, seriously contemplate applying the technical teaching of the prior art document in the range of overlap. Provided the information in the prior art document, in combination with the skilled person's common general knowledge, is sufficient to enable him to practise the technical teaching, and if it can reasonably be assumed that he would do so, then the claim in question will lack novelty.
[8] In the Board's view, there is no fundamental difference between examining novelty in situations of so-called ‘overlap’ or ‘selection’, and in doing so in other situations, although it may be helpful, in order to verify a preliminary conclusion of a novelty examination in cases of overlap, to investigate whether or not a particular technical effect is associated with the narrow range in question. It needs to be stressed, however that such a particular effect is neither a prerequisite for novelty nor can it as such confer novelty: its existence can merely serve to confirm a finding of novelty already achieved (following T 198/ 84, OJ EPO 1985, 209, para.7).
The above concept of ‘seriously contemplating’ moving from a broad to a narrow (overlapping) range, while seemingly akin to one of the concepts used by the Boards for assessing inventive step, namely, whether the notional addressee ‘would have tried, with reasonable expectation of success’ to bridge the technical gap between a particular piece of prior art and a claim whose inventiveness is in question, is fundamentally different from this ‘inventive-step concept’ because in order to establish anticipation, there cannot be a gap of the above kind.
In summary, and in dealing with the respondent's submission outlined previously, under the EPC novelty must be decided by reference to the total information content of a cited prior document, and in assessing the content for the purpose of deciding whether or not a claim is novel, the Board may employ legal concepts that are similar to those used by them in deciding issues of obviousness, without, however, thereby confusing or blurring the distinction between these two separate statutory grounds of objection.”
49. In H. Lundbeck A/S v Norpharma SpA [2011] EWHC 907 (Pat); [2011] RPC 23 I expressed reservations about the criterion proposed by the TBA in UNILEVER in the passage I have cited above:
“[88] I derive the following guidance from this passage of relevance to this case:
(a) The term ‘available’ goes beyond the strict literal meaning and includes what is implicit as well;
(b) On the other hand, matter may be contained in a document but so submerged in it as not to be available (compare Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Ltd v Eli Lilly and Co Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1362, [2010] RPC 9);
(c) Novelty in the case of overlapping ranges is no different from novelty in other circumstances.
[89] What I find, with great respect, more difficult
to follow is the notion that it may be legitimate to find lack of novelty
because the skilled person would ‘seriously contemplate’ moving from a broad
range to a narrow range. Merely by stating the proposition in that way one can
see that it is inconsistent with the approach approved by the House of Lords in
Smithkline Beecham plc's (Paroxetine Methane Sulfonate) Patent.
There is
no disclosure of the narrower range. Moreover, assuming no specific individual
value is disclosed, there are no clear directions to use a value within the
narrower range. A person carrying out the disclosure of the prior range will
not inevitably fall within the claim of the later
patent.
If the ‘serious
contemplation’ approach is indeed the correct approach in the case of
overlapping ranges, then overlapping ranges are a special case in the law of
novelty, a proposition which is inconsistent with the third proposition derived
from T666/89 itself.
52.
That brings me to the question of whether Neely Table IV deprives claim
1 of the patent
of novelty. 6 out of the 13 ranges in claim 1 of the
patent
merely overlap to varying extents with the Neely Table IV ranges. Jushi do not
draw attention to anything in Neely which teaches the skilled person that they
should operate in the area of combined overlap of these ranges. The only basis
on which it could be said that there is a clear disclosure of operating within
the area of overlap is if it can be said that Neely discloses every possible
combination of values for each of the constituents. Mr Turner submits that
Neely does indeed do this, because it discloses “a compositional space” in
which the skilled person would understand that any combination of individual values
within Table IV may be chosen. Each and every combination of values is
therefore disclosed for the purposes of the law of novelty, and at least a
fraction of these combinations will fall within claim 1.
Obviousness
59. Although neither side referred us to it, a useful, structured approach to the issue of obviousness remains that set out in Pozzolli v BDMO SA, [2007] EWCA Civ 588; [2007] FSR 37 at [23]:
"(1) (a) Identify the notional "person skilled in the art"
(b) Identify the relevant common general knowledge of that person;
(2) Identify the inventive concept of the claim in question or if that cannot readily be done, construe it;
(3) Identify what, if any, differences exist between the matter cited as forming part of the "state of the art" and the inventive concept of the claim or the claim as construed;
(4) Viewed without any knowledge of the alleged invention as claimed, do those differences constitute steps which would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art or do they require any degree of invention?"
60.
The difficulties faced by Jushi are in connection with steps 3 and 4.
Insofar as their case started with Examples 1 and 5 of Neely, it was possible
to identify the differences between that matter and claim 1 of the patent.
In
example 1 the differences lay in Neely’s percentage of Li2O, which
was higher than claimed, and in his total of Al2O3, MgO
and Li2O, which was lower than claimed. For this part of the case,
therefore, Jushi needed evidence to show that the skilled person would consider
modifying those values in the direction of claim 1 whilst keeping all other
values within the ranges in the
patent.
A similar exercise could have been done
for Example 5, where Neely’s ratio of CaO/MgO was too high and the total of Al2O3,
MgO and Li2O was too low.
61.
We were not shown any evidence on which the judge could conclude that
taking such steps was obvious. Moreover, as I have said, there was evidence
that making even small changes to constituents could have a disproportionately
large effect on properties. Without knowledge of the patent,
there was no need
to focus on those parameters which were out of range. As the judge observed,
the resulting exercise in varying each component by some factor and seeing what
happened was more properly characterised as research without any preconceived
notion of success.
63.
For it to be obvious to proceed from the information in Table IV to a
composition within claim 1 of the patent the judge was entitled to expect
evidence that the skilled person would make the relevant choices of values in the
combination necessary to do so, whilst at the same time not taking other
constituents out of range. In the absence of such evidence he was properly
entitled to reject the obviousness attack on the facts of this case.
Conclusion
64. For the above reasons I would dismiss the appeal.
Lord Justice Henderson
Lord Justice Kitchin