One of the basic attacks to any patent is that it is invalid on the grounds that it is obvious. In Conor Medsystems Incorporated (Respondents) v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Incorporated and others (Appellants) the House of Lords upheld the Patent as being valid.
The term obvious was described in Sir Hugh Laddie, book- Patents – what’s invention got to do with it? “When patents and patent applications succumb to invalidity attacks, obviousness is the most common cause. This inevitably generates friction between the community of patentees and applicants on the one hand and patent offices and national courts on the other. A company which has spent millions of dollars on research and has produced a valuable new drug will be understandably irritated when, say, a court declares the patent invalid for obviousness, thereby opening up the market to competitors who are free to copy. That irritation is likely to be particularly acute when the raison d’Ãªtre of the patent system is said to be the economic encouragement of research and development.”
In Johns-Manville Corporation’s Patent…..it was said that a development should be treated as obvious if ‘the person versed in the art would assess the likelihood of success as sufficient to warrant actual trial’.
However Laddie had a problem with this as technology grows at a pace. “On its face, this produces an unworkable or irrational test. If the reward for finding a solution to a problem and securing a monopoly for that solution is very high, then it may well be worthwhile for large players to examine all potential avenues to see if one gives the right result, even though the prospects of any one of them succeeding are much less than 50/50. What makes something worth trying is the outcome of a simple risk to reward calculation. Yet, if the reward is very large, the avenues worth trying will be expanded accordingly. So, the more commercially attractive the solution and the more pressing the public clamour for it, the harder it will be to avoid an obviousness attack.
Lord Hoffman stated “It is hard to see how the notion that something is worth trying or might have some effect can be described as an invention in respect of which anyone would be entitled to a monopoly. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that the test for obviousness which Pumfrey J devised for such an ‘invention” was whether it was obvious to try it without any expectation of success. This oxymoronic concept has, so far as I know, no precedent in the law of patents.
The question of obviousness must though be considered on the facts of each case. The court must consider the weight to be attached to any particular factor in the light of all the relevant circumstances. These may include such matters as the motive to find a solution to the problem the patent addresses, the number and extent of the possible avenues of research, the effort involved in pursuing them and the expectation of success.