Re Asahi Kasei Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha (Appellants)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Keith of Kinkel,Lord Brandon of Oakbrook,Lord Ackner,Lord Oliver of Aylmerton,Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
Judgment Date09 May 1991
Judgment citation (vLex)[1991] UKHL J0509-1
Date09 May 1991
CourtHouse of Lords

[1991] UKHL J0509-1

House of Lords

Lord Keith of Kinkel

Lord Brandon of Oakbrook

Lord Ackner

Lord Oliver of Aylmerton

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle

In re Asahi Kasei Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha
(Appellants)
Lord Keith of Kinkel

My Lords,

1

I have had the opportunity of considering in draft the speeches to be delivered by my noble and learned friends Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle. I agree with them and for the reasons they give would allow this appeal.

Lord Brandon of Oakbrook

My Lords,

2

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speeches prepared by my noble and learned friends, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle. I agree with both speeches and for the reasons given in them I would allow the appeal.

Lord Ackner

My Lords,

3

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speeches prepared by my noble and learned friends, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle. I agree with both speeches and for the reasons given in them I, too, would allow the appeal.

Lord Oliver of Aylmerton

My Lords,

4

This appeal raises an important and difficult point of construction of the provisions relating to novelty and priority contained in sections 2 and 5 of the Patents Act 1977 ("the Act"). In the final analysis the problem which the House has been called upon to solve resolves itself into the short question of the correct construction of a single subsection of the Act, but it has been necessary to consider not only a number of other statutory provisions (including some provisions of the Patents Act 1949) but also portions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of 1883, the Strasbourg Convention of 1963 and the European Patents Convention ("the Convention"). I would be ungrateful if I did not acknowledge at the outset the assistance which I have received in the course of a guided tour of (to me) hitherto unfamiliar territory not only from the submissions of counsel but from the very carefully prepared printed cases lodged by the parties.

5

The underlying purpose of the patent system is the encouragement of improvements and innovation. In return for making known his improvement to the public the inventor receives the benefit of a period of monopoly during which he becomes entitled to prevent others from performing his invention except by his licence. The necessarily technical process of applying for a patent, which involves the formulation of precisely expressed claims defining the extent of the monopoly applied for, and the equally technical process of investigating the claims made inevitably involve a considerable lapse of time between the date when the inventor first makes his application and the date when his invention is exposed to the public and his patent is granted. Equally inevitably, because two or more persons are likely to evolve and develop similar concepts, competing applications for patents for the same invention will be made, sometimes within a short space of time and possibly in different parts of the world, so that provision has to be made for regulating priorities between copending applications both domestically and in different countries. This has for many years been dealt with by international convention which is reflected in domestic legislation, priority being regulated on a "first to file" basis, so that that application which is the first in time to be filed for processing by the appropriate scrutinising authority is accorded precedence even though it may not, at that stage, have complied with all the formalities required by law for a completed application.

6

Although the instant appeal turns ultimately upon the correct construction of section 2(3) of the Act, which is concerned not directly with priority but with delimiting what is to be considered the existing state of the art for the purpose of determining whether an invention possesses the necessary quality of novelty, the problem posed cannot be answered without consideration both of a number of interlocking sections of the Act and of the conventional background to the statutory provisions.

7

Inevitably it becomes necessary for an understanding of the problems which arise to set out verbatim and in context substantial portions of the relevant sections of the Act and of such articles of the conventions as are material to the appeal and it may be convenient to do this before rehearsing the factual background and the history of the litigation in the courts below and evaluating their impact upon the application in suit.

8

To begin with, regard has to be paid to the fact that one of the primary purposes of the Act was to give effect to the United Kingdom's obligations under a number of international conventions and in particular the Convention. Sections 2 and 5 of the Act, with which this appeal is particularly concerned, refer to "an application for a patent," a patent being defined as a patent under the Act. Section 130 of the Act, however, contains a number of definitions which extend the expression to include an application for a patent under the Convention in the European Patent Office, so that a patent granted in that office and designating the United Kingdom has the same effect as a patent granted under the Act. This is a feature of the legislation which not only has an important bearing on the construction of the statute but underlines the importance of a common jurisprudence in relation to domestic and Convention patent applications. At the outset, however, there should be noted the express provisions of section 130(7) of the Act which, so far as relevant, is in these terms:

"Whereas by a resolution made on the signature of the Community Patent Convention the governments of the member states of the European Economic Community resolved to adjust their laws relating to patents so as (among other things) to bring those laws into conformity with the corresponding provisions of the European Patent Convention … it is hereby declared that the following provisions of this Act, that is to say, sections 1(1) to (4), 2 to 6, 14(3), (5) and (6), 37(5), 54, 60, 69, 72(1) and (2), 74(4), 82, 83, 88(6) and (7), 100 and 125, are so framed as to have, as nearly as practicable, the same effects in the United Kingdom as the corresponding provisions of the European Patent Convention … have in the territories to which those conventions apply."

9

Turning to the substantive provisions of the Act, section 1 lays down the essential qualities required for patentability, the first of which is that "the invention is new." The extent of an "invention" is defined in section 125(1) in the following terms:

"For the purposes of this Act an invention for a patent for which an application has been made or for which a patent has been granted shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be taken to be that specified in a claim of the specification of the application or patent, as the case may be, as interpreted by the description and any drawings contained in that specification, and the extent of the protection conferred by a patent or application for a patent shall be determined accordingly."

10

The expression "a claim of the specification of the application" is explained by reference to section 14 which lays down the formal requirement for making an application for a patent. Subsection (1) requires the application to be in a form prescribed by rules and

Lord Oliver of Aylmerton

My Lords,

11

This appeal raises an important and difficult point of construction of the provisions relating to novelty and priority contained in sections 2 and 5 of the Patents Act 1977 ("the Act"). In the final analysis the problem which the House has been called upon to solve resolves itself into the short question of the correct construction of a single subsection of the Act, but it has been necessary to consider not only a number of other statutory provisions (including some provisions of the Patents Act 1949) but also portions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of 1883, the Strasbourg Convention of 1963 and the European Patents Convention ("the Convention"). I would be ungrateful if I did not acknowledge at the outset the assistance which I have received in the course of a guided tour of (to me) hitherto unfamiliar territory not only from the submissions of counsel but from the very carefully prepared printed cases lodged by the parties.

12

The underlying purpose of the patent system is the encouragement of improvements and innovation. In return for making known his improvement to the public the inventor receives the benefit of a period of monopoly during which he becomes entitled to prevent others from performing his invention except by his licence. The necessarily technical process of applying for a patent, which involves the formulation of precisely expressed claims defining the extent of the monopoly applied for, and the equally technical process of investigating the claims made inevitably involve a considerable lapse of time between the date when the inventor first makes his application and the date when his invention is exposed to the public and his patent is granted. Equally inevitably, because two or more persons are likely to evolve and develop similar concepts, competing applications for patents for the same invention will be made, sometimes within a short space of time and possibly in different parts of the world, so that provision has to be made for regulating priorities between copending applications both domestically and in different countries. This has for many years been dealt with by international convention which is reflected in domestic legislation, priority being regulated on a "first to file" basis, so that that application which is the first in time to be filed for processing by the appropriate scrutinising authority is accorded precedence even though it may not, at that stage,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Itp Sa V. Coflexip Stena Offshore Limited
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Session
    • 26 August 2003
    ...follows that no one man has previously made that invention and that the combination is novel." [43]In Asahi Kasei Kogyo KK’s Application [1991] R.P.C.485 Lord Jauncey said, at page 543, of an enabling disclosure that "a person skilled in the art must be able to make the [product] from the d......
  • Synthon BV v Smithkline Beecham Plc (No.2)
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 20 October 2005
    ...2(2) or, as in this case, section 2(3). The latter point was settled by the decision of this House in Asahi Kasei Kogyo KK's Application [1991] RPC 485. 27 Asahi's case was decided on the assumed facts that there had been a prior disclosure of the same invention (a particular polypeptide) b......
  • Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.v v Nintendo of Europe GmbH
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division (Patents Court)
    • 20 June 2014
    ...They noted that the argument that the purpose of s2(3) was to prevent double patenting had been rejected by the House of Lords in Asahi [1991] RPC 485. They held that the judge's construction that the section was not to prevent overlapping monopolies would make it easy to evade and that the......
  • Generics (UK) Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 25 February 2009
    ...That puzzle was near the surface of the discussion, but was not in terms resolved, by this House in Asahi Kasei Kogyo KK's Application [1991] RPC 485 ("Asahi"). That appeal raised an issue on section 5(2)(a) of the Patents Act 1977 (which also refers to an invention being "supported"). Lord......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • INVENTIONS, GENES AND NAPOLEONIC VICTORIES
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1997, December 1997
    • 1 December 1997
    ...to go where Angels fear to tread. Is this an inventive step? 43 Similar provisions can be found in s. 17(2)(a) of PA 1994 (Singapore). 44 [1991] RPC 485. 45 S.14(3) stales that the specification of an application shall disclose the invention in a manner which is clear enough and complete en......
  • Chief Judge Rader's Contribution to Comparative Patent Law
    • United States
    • University of Whashington School of Law Journal of Law, Technology & Arts No. 7-4, June 2012
    • Invalid date
    ...claims to be supported by the description (the written-description requirement). 64. UKPA § 72. 65. Asahi Kasei Kogyo KK's Application, [1991] R.P.C. 485. 66. Biogen Inc. v. Medeva Plc [1997] R.P.C. 1. 67. Generics Ltd. v. H. Lundbech A/S, [2009] UKHL 12. 68. T 0409/91, OJ EPO 1994, 653 ("F......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT