Prior art (Commercial) meaning

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc and others v Dexcom Inc and others [2025] EWCA Civ 1633 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision adds little to the law on inventive step, yet it does spotlight several best‑practice lessons. The court applied the orthodox Pozzoli framework. The appeal succeeded because the judge did not apply their own construction of the claims, and there was no evidence showing that a specific embodiment could render the invention obvious. Taken together, these points emphasise that parties should: Settle claim construction carefully at the outset Advance alternative obviousness lines where appropriate Avoid blending distinct embodiments within a prior art disclosure Secondly, although the dispute had settled, Abbott still pursued an appeal against revocation of its patent. With the CGM market valued at many billions of pounds, safeguarding and enforcing its rights—and weighing whether to challenge adverse outcomes—was a significant commercial judgment. The High Court delivered its judgment after more than 14 months...

This Practice Note reviews the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra-judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (1965) (the Hague Service Convention). The convention applies between contracting parties and prescribes how service of documents should be effected. This Practice Note does not consider whether the court’s permission is needed to serve documents outside England and Wales (England). For guidance, see Practice Notes: Cross-border service—a guide for dispute resolution practitioners and Cross-border service—is permission required to serve a defendant who is outside England and Wales? For an understanding of the convention, the Hague Convention on Private International Law (HCCH) provides useful FAQs and a two-page outline. It also publishes a detailed Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Service Convention, which must be purchased. Note that the handbook has superseded the Explanatory Report on the Hague Service Convention; see: HCCH confirm the explanatory report has been superseded. Definitions Definitions used in this Practice Note: addressee—the person who is to be served applicant—the...

Patents can be revoked (ie struck from the patents register) if, in any respect, they are found invalid. Once revoked, a patent is treated as though it never existed. The statutory grounds are prescribed in section 72 of the Patents Act 1977 (PA 1977). One such ground is that the invention is not patentable. Under PA 1977, s 1, an invention is patentable only if it: is novel (ie not ‘anticipated’) entails an inventive step (ie not ‘obvious’) can be applied industrially is not excluded under PA 1977, s 1(2)–(3) or s 4A This Practice Note focuses on invalidity arising from a lack of inventive step, often called patent obviousness. For guidance on other revocation grounds, see the Practice Notes: Patent invalidity—grounds of revocation Patent invalidity—novelty Patent invalidity—insufficiency Obviousness—general principles To obtain and retain a patent, novelty alone is insufficient; the invention must not be an obvious variation of what has previously...

ARCHIVED : This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Keeping pace with case law that shapes a practice area is a constant challenge for practitioners. This Practice Note distils the principal appeal decisions (Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, and, where appropriate, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)) that we have reported, providing users with straightforward access to those rulings. The tracker is browsable, and cases are grouped under the following headings: Key DR developments, Applicable law, Jurisdiction, Service, Limitation, Claims and remedies, Injunctions and other relief orders, Pre-action, Litigation, Case management, Applications specific, Evidence and disclosure, Settlement, ADR, Appeals and Judicial Review, Costs and funding, Enforcement, Insolvency Alternatively, search the tracker using [CTL]+[F]. This resource is not intended to be a complete catalogue of all appeals. Key DR developments Brexit—Supreme Court—Article 50 litigation―UK Supreme Court rules on the limits of the prerogative and devolved powers In its highly anticipated judgment in R (on...