Chemical and pharmaceutical companies protect their investment in research and development and the future of the companies by securing patents on their inventions. Patents help you resist competition. Success or failure of the company often depends on the strength of the patent. The words in the patent document must meet rigid formality requirements under the patent laws. Even if the invention covered by the patent is a fantastic one, the court will throw out the patent if it violates any one of the formality requirements.

One of the first things to do when you have an idea is to write it down. Documentation is the most important step you can make to in securing future rights to your idea. The documentation needs to be in a tight bound or engineering type notebook. These are like a basic school notebook that pages cannot be added. It’s also a good idea to get a notebook that it’s also difficult and noticeable if any pages are removed.

Chemical and pharmaceutical companies protect their investment in research and development and the future of the companies by securing patents on their inventions. Patents help you resist competition. Success or failure of the company often depends on the strength of the patent and the longer the term of the patent, the greater will be its value. A strong patent is one that defines your invention broadly and but at the same time builds in fallback narrow invention.

In the case of Les Laboratoires Servier and Another v KRKA Polska SP.ZO.O. and Another [2006], the claimants made an application for an interim injunction to prevent the marketing and distribution of a drug which they claimed infringed their patent. The claimant companies were in the business of manufacturing and researching pharmaceutical products. The first claimant was the second largest French pharmaceutical company worldwide, and the second claimant was a wholly owned subsidiary that marketed and researched such products within the UK.

The defendants were members of a group of companies involved in the sale and distribution of a large number of generic pharmaceutical products worldwide.

The case of Conor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc and Another [2007], concerned a patent for a medical device used in operations. The defendants owned a European patent for a device called a ‘stent’ used in coronary angioplasty. The ‘stent’ is inserted into a diseased artery during the procedure to keep the artery open. The claims in the patent concerned a ‘stent’ coated with a polymer loaded with the drug taxol. This drug inhibited the development of tissue which might result in the artery closing.

The UK Patent Office conducted a consultation on one of the tests for patentability – which is whether an invention has an ‘Inventive Step’. The test is whether the invention is obvious to a person skilled in the art taking into account what prior art was available at the time when the patent application was filed.

The consultation looked at the wider significance of the ‘Inventive Step’ and whether there was any need for change. It also considered the possibilities of refining the ‘Inventive Step’ test under UK and European law.

In the recent judgment of Re Shopalotto.com (2005), the Comptroller refused a patent application for a computer programme that permitted a user to play the lottery on the grounds that it was excluded from patentability under the provisions of the Patents Act 1977.

Shopalotto.com applied for a patent of a computer apparatus configured to provide a lottery playable via the Internet. The apparatus provided a web server and further software conditioning the machine to receive, store, select and compare. This enabled the computer to operate in a new way—to permit a user to play the lottery. The application was rejected and Shopalotto.com appealed this decision.

The claimant in the case of LG Phillips Co Ltd v Tatung (UK) Ltd and Others [2006], held a UK patent for mounting a flat panel display device within a two-part housing, which could be incorporated into products such as laptops or free standing computer monitors. The patent was principally directed at LCD displays for laptops. The claimant brought proceedings against three defendants in the patent county court. It was alleged that the defendants had infringed the patent through the creation of a closed circuit television monitor. The defendants denied infringement, and actually counterclaimed for the revocation of the patent in question on the grounds of anticipation, obviousness and insufficiency.