• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Gowling WLG
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • Cookie Policy
  • Home
  • About
  • Posts
  • Blogs
    • B2022
    • The IP Blog
    • Public Law & Regulation
    • AI
    • The UPC Blog

LoupedIn

Patents in 2020 – The year in review

Published on February 4, 2021 by Gordon Harris

Patents in 2020 – The year in review

Every year since 1998, I have produced a summary of the major patent cases from the previous year and presented it at our annual patents seminar

You can take a look at the full review on our website but, for those of you in a hurry, I’ve summarised the five big takeaway points from the key patent cases of 2020 below:

  1. The doctrine of equivalents is now embedded in the UK patent system.  Cases are being won purely on the operation of the doctrine, like Evalve v Edwards, where a patent for a transcatheter insertion of a mitral valve was found to be infringed under the doctrine of equivalents.  The law is still evolving, and in one potentially interesting development, a judge refused to strike out a pleading which alleged that the actual intention of the alleged infringer was material to an assessment of equivalence – they meant to create something the same so it must be equivalent.  It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

  2. The patent monopoly was re-affirmed in a number of cases, not least in the post-trial order hearing in Evalve v Edwards where a request that an injunction should not be granted due to the public interest was considered and dismissed.  The case was not made out that the infringing product was a “life saving device” which ought to be available to the public.  With possible litigation concerning vaccine technology in the pipeline, it will be interesting to see how this develops in the coming years.

  3. The law of obviousness was reviewed by two of the most senior judges, Floyd LJ and Arnold LJ, and they did not agree.  In Emson v Hozelock, the Court of Appeal was split 2:1 on the question of whether the patent for a novel and space saving garden hose was rendered non-inventive by prior art in the aviation industry, for a hose delivering oxygen to pilots.  The first instance finding of obviousness was upheld, but I disagree with this decision. I think that the bar has been set too high for demonstrating inventive step in this case.

  4. The law relating to the question of sufficiency was battered by a non-specialist Supreme Court panel for the second time in successive years.  In Regeneron v Kymab, the Supreme Court managed to get a fairly basic issue of law wrong, ruling contrary to previous authority and, said Gordon, common sense, that the date for assessment of sufficiency was the priority date of the patent, not the application date.  I commented that, in the light of the previous Supreme Court decision in Warner Lambert, where the bar for plausibility was set high, to exclude from that consideration research, trials and experiments conducted between the priority date and the application date made the job of the patentee very difficult, especially in pharmaceutical cases.  I expressed the hope that a further panel in the Supreme Court, with the IP expert Lord Kitchin able to sit, might correct the obvious errors and put this area of the law back on track.  One 2020 case, Akebia v Fibrogen, looks like a possible opportunity to achieve that goal as if works its way through the court system.

  5. In Thaler v The Comptroller of Patents, the world of artificial intelligence made its first full appearance in the Court lists.  It is a quite eccentric case, where the owner of the AI machine applied for the patent naming the machine, Dabus, as the inventor.  It was pointed out that he may have had a chance of getting the patent granted if he had named himself as inventor, but he felt that would be immoral as the machine had done the work!  The patent was not granted and that decision was upheld in the High Court.  The judge took the opportunity to say that “were an alien from outside the galaxy to present itself before the courts…..I would like to think that it would not be denied legal personality simply on the grounds of unforeseen extraterritoriality”.  We’ll bear that in mind.

2020 was a tough year for us all, but the courts – from the judges to the cleaners – made a fantastic effort to keep the wheels of justice turning during the COVID-19 crisis.  By innovation, ingenuity and determination they had delivered as many patent judgments as in a usual year, and developed systems which will outlast the COVID-19 situation and improve the efficiency of justice for generations to come.

Finally, in recognition of a lifetime of service to the IP world and an excellent judicial career, I named Lord Justice Floyd, who retires in 2021, as my “Judge of the Year”.

Read the full year in review on our website to find out more about the key cases from 2020 and those to watch out for in 2021. You can also watch the webinar in full.

About the author(s)

Photo of Gordon Harris
Gordon Harris
Of Counsel - Global IP Leadership at Gowling WLG | View Profile | See recent posts

Gordon Harris is part of the Global IP Leadership Team for Gowling WLG, working across all the firm's offices to help build the practice and develop new specialisms.

  • Gordon Harris
    https://loupedin.blog/author/gordonharris/
    Gearing up for UPC Implementation one step closer as Slovenia ratifies the PAP Protocol
  • Gordon Harris
    https://loupedin.blog/author/gordonharris/
    One more UPC Signatory State to ratify the PAP Protocol
  • Gordon Harris
    https://loupedin.blog/author/gordonharris/
    Who controls your opt-out?
  • Gordon Harris
    https://loupedin.blog/author/gordonharris/
    What is "Opting Out" and why does it matter?

Gordon Harris

Gordon Harris is part of the Global IP Leadership Team for Gowling WLG, working across all the firm's offices to help build the practice and develop new specialisms.

Filed Under: Analysis, Opinion Tagged With: Intellectual Property, Patents

Views expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect those of Gowling WLG.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Information made available on this website in any form is for information purposes only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. You should not rely on, or take or fail to take any action based upon this information. Never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking legal advice because of something you have read on this website. Gowling WLG professionals will be pleased to discuss resolutions to specific legal concerns you may have.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Environmental law in 2023 – Key areas to follow
  • AI and copyright in 2022
  • A legal update on the UK’s ban on single-use plastics

Tags

Artificial Intelligence (AI) (51) Autonomous vehicles (11) b2022 (18) Birmingham 2022 (8) Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games (14) Blockchain (4) brand protection (5) Brexit (23) china (5) Climate change (12) COP26 (11) COP27 (5) Copyright (7) COVID-19 (23) Cyber security (5) Data protection (6) Employment (13) employment law (9) Environment (8) ESG (21) ESG and pensions (9) GowlingAtTheGames (5) Intellectual Property (56) IP (9) Life sciences (6) net zero (6) Patents (28) Pensions (39) Pension scams (5) Pension Schemes Act 2021 (10) Pensions dashboards (6) Pensions in 2022 (10) Pensions law (30) Procurement (7) Public Law & Regulation (39) Real Estate (16) Retail (6) sustainability (7) Tech (42) The Week In Pensions (11) Trademarks (12) UK (15) unified patents court (9) UPC (24) Week in HR (8)

Categories

Archives

Gowling WLG is an international law firm comprising the members of Gowling WLG International Limited, an English Company Limited by Guarantee, and their respective affiliates. Each member and affiliate is an autonomous and independent entity. Gowling WLG International Limited promotes, facilitates and co-ordinates the activities of its members but does not itself provide services to clients. Our structure is explained in more detail on our Legal Information page.

Footer

LoupedIn is the Official Gowling WLG Blog. Gowling WLG is an international law firm comprising the members of Gowling WLG International Limited, an English Company Limited by Guarantee, and their respective affiliates. Each member and affiliate is an autonomous and independent entity. Gowling WLG International Limited promotes, facilitates and co-ordinates the activities of its members but does not itself provide services to clients. Our structure is explained in more detail on our Legal Information page.

  • Home
  • About
  • Gowling WLG
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • Cookie Policy

© 2023 Gowling WLG

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT