tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1454051731189268002.post6504016376193567121..comments2024-03-27T11:29:23.559-03:00Comments on Sufficient Description: Is it "More or less Self-evident That What Is Being Tested Ought to Work"?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1454051731189268002.post-55235312620019838372017-10-06T09:33:12.215-03:002017-10-06T09:33:12.215-03:00The succinate salt was claimed in claims 2-5, but ...The succinate salt was claimed in claims 2-5, but they were not in issueNormanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17573687140337856397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1454051731189268002.post-86692437671407841832017-10-06T09:30:02.006-03:002017-10-06T09:30:02.006-03:00You are correct in that Form I ODV succinate was t...You are correct in that Form I ODV succinate was the claimed invention according to the judge. I just find it odd that it was not the ODV succinate salt itself. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1454051731189268002.post-30408643396852951392017-10-05T10:21:40.690-03:002017-10-05T10:21:40.690-03:00Brown J applied Sanofi to Form I ODV succinate bec...Brown J applied Sanofi to Form I ODV succinate because that was the claimed invention; the claim to the succinate salt was not an issue. at issue. I don't really see a holding that the succinate salt itself was inventive. Can you point me to a specific paragraph?Normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17573687140337856397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1454051731189268002.post-29826515302859766142017-10-04T17:31:39.912-03:002017-10-04T17:31:39.912-03:00Once it was determined that the succinate salt of ...Once it was determined that the succinate salt of ODV was novel and inventive ( I believe this was correct), why bother with applying Sanofi to Form I of ODV? It would appear any polymorph that originates from this salt would be novel and non-obvious because of the base salt form.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1454051731189268002.post-56332859639136899162017-10-04T14:15:52.024-03:002017-10-04T14:15:52.024-03:00Yes, the particular problem with Johns-Manville wa...Yes, the particular problem with Johns-Manville was that the bar for whether something was “obvious to try” was that it was “well worth trying out". I agree that is too low a standard (ie to easy to invalidate the patent on that basis) for the reasons given by Jacob LJ in Angiotech. However, the point of the example is that the mere fact that the properties are unpredictable prior to experimentation does not in itself make the invention non-obvious, so long as the invention was obvious to try. That point remains even if the standard for obvious to try is whether it is “more or less self-evident” that it ought to be tried. Normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17573687140337856397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1454051731189268002.post-6711105372768972132017-10-04T13:38:06.243-03:002017-10-04T13:38:06.243-03:00It was widely felt in the UK that the "obviou...It was widely felt in the UK that the "obvious to try" test as propounded in Johns-Manville was unfair on Patentees. That is why Jacob L.J. modified the test in the form it was adopted in Sanofi. Peter Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03352686204387152116noreply@blogger.com