Today in the Bexsero case, GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd. v. Wyeth Holdings LLC, [2016]EWHC 1045(CH)(Carr, J.), in the course of a lengthy opinion dealing with validity and infringement, the trial judge provides an interesting case study for American and Asian comparative law experts.
Obviousness: Among many important points, the court restated the law of obviousness applicable to the facts of this case as summarized at ¶ 240 (set forth in the pdf version of this note).
The “Squeeze” Defense: The Court rejected (based upon the facts of the case) an argument of a “squeeze[ ] between the prior art and insufficiency [of disclosure]. The submission was that the “Patent *** as filed [is] no more enabling than the prior art. Therefore, the Patent must be invalid, as one or other of these objections must succeed.” ¶ 248.
The pdf version of this note also includes a full copy of the opinion.
Regards,
Hal