Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> IPKat

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Intellectual Property Law

: IPKat

Manual Labours: Manual of Patent Practice Updated

By Johanna Gibson, David Pearce, Jeremy Phillips and Ilanah Simon.

ADVERTISEMENTS

Those that are fans of the IPO?s Manual of Patent Practice (and let?s fact it, who isn?t?), will be delighted to learn (admittedly slightly later than this Kat was originally intending) that this most informative of publications has recently been subject to the latest round in its thrice-yearly update schedule. For those that have not checked the Manual since the end of September, a helpful summary of the bits that may now be different to the last time you looked can be found here.

Highlights include:

Updated guidance on the person skilled in the art following the Court of Appeal?s decision in Schlumberger Holdings Ltd v Electromagnetic Geoservices AS [2010] EWCA Civ 819 (noted by the IPKat here) ? the manual has also been revised in light of Jacob LJ?s explanation of the issue of long-felt want in the same case.

Discussion of clarity of claims using the terms ?predetermined? or ?preset?: updated in light of the decision in Folding Attic Stairs Ltd v Loft Stairs Co. Ltd. [2009] FSR 24 (a case which, readers may recall, prompted a storm of comments when first blogged by the IPKat here).

Also brought within the IPO?s corral is the decision in Dr Reddy?s Laboratories (UK) Ltd v Eli Lilly & Co Ltd [2010] RPC 8 (noted by the IPKat here), in which the Court of Appeal delved into the murky depths of selection invention ? asking, in the process, where a wise man would hide a leaf?

The sections on supplementary protection certificates has also been updated in light of the decisions of the High Court in Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents [2010] EWHC 1733 (Pat), and that of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the artist formerly known as the ECJ) in Case C-428/08 Monsanto Technology LLC v Cefetra BV et al (the latter was noted by the IPKat here).