Grounds for invalidating a patent friends dating uganda
(It has been confirmed by the Patents Court in Liversidge v British Telecommunications plc  RPC 229 that s.72(1)(e) relates only to amendment of the patent which occurred after it had been granted.) Although the grounds listed for revocation do not, as such, include non-compliance with section 14(5), Lord Hoffmann in Biogen v Medeva  RPC 1 held (at page 47) that “the substantive effect of section 14(5)(c), namely that the description should, together with the rest of the specification, constitute an enabling disclosure, is given effect by section 72(1)(c)”. Thus clarity, conciseness and support are matters to be considered by the Patent Office granting the patent, but lack of clarity, conciseness and support are not grounds for revocation”.
WIPO has instituted this provision because although the International examiner properly considers as wide a range of prior art as reasonably possible, it is recognized that it is impossible for any examiner to perform a perfect search. The patent concerns a method for cleaning heaters through localised explosions generated through a balloon containing an explosive mixture. 54450/2012) in January 2015 held that an Italian part of a European patent was invalid for, inter alia, having a lack of essential features in the independent claims.Amongst several difficulties, much prior art is simply not recorded in databases likely to be searched by an examiner in any Patent Office.
The people most likely to be aware of such prior art are likely to be commercial competitors of the applicant.Anticipation is a grounds for invalidating or rejecting a patent because it means that the claimed invention lacks novelty.Patent invalidity based on lack of novelty, or anticipation, requires that the invention was known or used by others before it was invented by the patentee.In Europe, article 138 of the European Patent Convention (EPC) excludes clarity from the grounds for national revocation.