Being equitable about equivalents – Article from #1 2019

Has Lord Neuberger in Actavis [efn_note]Actavis v Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48. [/efn_note] introduced “an amorphous general inventive idea” [efn_note] The Swedish Doctrine of Equivalence (2011) by Professor Bengt Domeij, Uppsala University, top of page 3, available in English at http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:391087/FULLTEXT01.pdf.[/efn_note] test to determine UK patent infringement by equivalents? Are “inessential integers”, once found extremely rarely [efn_note] Patents for Inventions, Blanco White, 5th Edition, paragraph 2-111.[/efn_note], now to be embraced as part of normal UK practice? Have UK patent claims become “a puzzle game”?[efn_note] Napp v Dr Reddy’s [2016] EWCA Civ 1053 at paragraph 71 per Floyd L.J. “A patent specification is not intended to be a puzzle game in which the skilled person must come up with his own theory as to what degree of precision was intended by the patentee.” [/efn_note]

Read this article as a PDF