Novelty meaning

Over the past decade or so, enforcement was driven by a potent, City‑centred mix of rate‑manipulation and financial markets inquiries, together with international corruption probes—each delving into the boardrooms of some of the UK’s largest public limited companies. In the post‑pandemic era, though, the atmosphere has shifted as belts have tightened in government and at home. Agencies across the enforcement landscape have renewed their attention on offending that clearly resonates with the public (making sure money remains with those who earned it) and, accordingly, they are intensifying their pursuit of fraud. Naturally, fraud inquiries are nothing new. This is a revival, not a novelty, prompted by the pronounced rise in fraud in recent years—so marked that the problem has been described as a pandemic. Indeed, Office of National Statistics figures show that in the first half of 2024, fraud accounted for over 40% of all reported crime...

Counsel for Pfizer and its collaborator BioNTech told the Court of Appeal on 10 July 2025 that the High Court had ‘fallen into error’ when assessing whether a central claim of Moderna’s patent was both novel and obvious at the time it filed the application. Tom Mitcheson KC, appearing for Pfizer, made clear that only Claim 3 of the surviving Moderna patent remained in dispute in these proceedings. Its challenge to Claim 5 fell away because it is not part of Moderna’s pending claim requests before the European Patent Office. Accordingly, Mitcheson said that their position on novelty is now ‘even stronger’ than it was before the trial judge. Moderna began the case in 2022 by issuing suits against Pfizer and BioNTech in the US...

The Court of Appeal rejected Salts Healthcare Ltd’s renewed bid to hold Pelican Healthcare Ltd responsible for infringing one of its ostomy bag patents, finding that the rival’s ModaVi range did not include weld portions that run all the way to the base. Nonetheless, Justice Richard Arnold allowed Salts’ appeal on the novelty of one claim (which the earlier judge had set aside) and on pre‑transfer costs in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court before the matter was then moved to the Patents Court. Salts began proceedings against Pelican in 2022, and later challenged a decision that had thrown out its allegation that the competitor was infringing one of its patents via its ModaVi pouches. The trial judge also determined that one of Salts’ patented claims was invalid, but approved Salts’ amendments, the judgment records. Salts maintained that the...

This Practice Note This Practice Note sets side-by-side patents, supplementary protection certificates (SPCs), trade secrets, copyright, database rights, design rights, trade marks and the tort of passing off, measured against: how protection comes about, what is covered (including, e.g. originality/novelty thresholds), length of protection, geographic scope, ownership, infringement, available defences, and threats provisions. It then weighs the principal pros and cons of each form of IP. The emphasis is on rights operating in the UK. After Brexit, the UK ceased to participate in the EU trade mark (EUTM) and EU designs regimes. Those regimes confer unitary rights spanning the EU Member States. Nonetheless, as outlined in greater detail below, arrangements exist for comparable UK rights to be established. This Practice Note does not examine the EUTM and EU designs regimes in depth. For further reading, see: Trade marks (EU Law)—overview and Designs (EU Law)—overview. For details on how Brexit affected the trade mark and designs regimes, see Practice Notes: Trade mark rights before and after Brexit—comparison table and Design...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and not maintained. It was originally prepared for Lexis Practice Advisor®, in the US. What is a patent? Under the US Patent Act 1952 (Patents Act), patents are issued by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). A patent owner holds a time-limited right to stop others from practising the claimed invention within the United States. The most common form is the utility patent, typically claiming a tangible thing or a set of steps. Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. Plant patents safeguard a plant variety produced through grafting, budding, or comparable methods (rather than by seed). Importantly, eligible subject matter must be stated in the patent claim itself; a disclosure in the specification alone is not enough. See Two-Way Media Ltd v Comcast Cable Communs, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1338-1339 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017) (not reported by LexisNexis®)...

During the development of the Murabaha structure for the UK, practitioners recognised that its novelty would inevitably create some uncertainty. Consequently, they aimed to embed features that would assist courts when construing Murabaha arrangements. They also acknowledged that conventional legal systems and Shari’ah approach Murabaha in distinct ways. This divergence did not deter Islamic finance participants from advancing the Murabaha agreement; even closely related legal systems, such as the English system, can reach different views on transactions and structures. Accordingly, Islamic finance specialists have crafted Murabaha contracts and other instruments so that they operate under both Shari’ah and the pertinent conventional legal frameworks. The differing readings of Murabaha under conventional law and Shari’ah reflect contrasts in historical evolution and emphasis. In the UK, funders and customers have built a framework around the notion that money can be treated as an asset, creating a market in money itself. Islamic finance rejects that foundational premise, and Islamic financial models place the emphasis on transferring non-monetary assets. This orientation introduces particular considerations that...

Claim No : [ insert claim number ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEBUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND & WALESINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)[ Patents Court OR Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ] Between:[ insert name ] Claimant/Part 20 Defendantand[ insert name ] First Defendant/Part 20 Claimant[ insert name ] Second Defendant/Part 20 Claimant Grounds of invalidity Set out below are the Grounds of Invalidity for [ GB Patent OR European Patent (UK) ] [ number ] (the Patent), as identified in the Defence and Counterclaim accompanying these Grounds, and on which the Defendants/Part 20 Claimants intend to rely. The purported invention, in all claims of the Patent, is not patentable because its subject matter lacked novelty in view of the state of the art at the Patent’s priority date [ and common general knowledge ]...