Anticipation Revocation Cases.
Anticipation and Patent Revocation
Definition of Anticipation:
A patent can be revoked for anticipation if the claimed invention was already disclosed in prior art before the filing date of the patent. In simpler terms: if someone else already invented or published it, the patent lacks novelty.
Key aspects of anticipation:
Prior publication: Any document, patent, or public use that discloses the invention.
Enablement: The prior art must enable a skilled person to carry out the invention.
Single prior art reference: Generally, one prior art disclosure that shows all elements of the claim can anticipate.
Detailed Case Laws on Anticipation
1. M/s. Roche Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd. (2008) 1 SCC 1 (India)
Facts:
Roche held a patent on an anti-cancer drug, Erlotinib.
Cipla applied for revocation, claiming the patent was anticipated by prior art, including earlier research papers and other compounds.
Legal Issue:
Was Roche’s patent novel, or was it already disclosed in prior art?
Court’s Approach:
Supreme Court emphasized that anticipation requires clear, enabling prior disclosure.
Mere hints or suggestions in prior art are insufficient.
If a prior publication gives enough information for a skilled person to reproduce the invention, it counts as anticipation.
Outcome:
The court examined prior publications in detail. It held that Roche’s specific compound and its use was not fully disclosed, so anticipation claim failed.
Principle:
Anticipation requires exact prior disclosure with enablement, not just general knowledge or hints.
2. Novartis AG v Union of India & Others, (2013) 6 SCC 1 (India)
Facts:
Novartis sought patent for Glivec, a cancer drug.
The patent office rejected it, claiming Section 3(d) + anticipation under Indian Patent Act. Prior art disclosed similar compounds.
Legal Issue:
Was the compound novel, or did prior art anticipate it?
Court’s Approach:
Supreme Court focused on novelty and inventive step.
Prior disclosures had similar compounds, but not the exact molecule claimed.
Mere structural similarity without same therapeutic effect is not sufficient to anticipate.
Outcome:
Patent denied under Section 3(d) (incremental modification not patentable), but purely for anticipation, prior art did not exactly disclose the invention.
Principle:
Anticipation requires exact prior disclosure, not just similar structures or potential function.
3. SmithKline Beecham plc v Apotex Inc. (2006) UKHL 59 (UK)
Facts:
Patent on a pharmaceutical compound for heart disease.
Apotex claimed that a prior patent and publications anticipated SmithKline’s patent.
Legal Issue:
Could prior art documents anticipate the claimed invention if they were less explicit?
Court’s Approach:
The House of Lords held that for anticipation:
The prior art must make the invention obvious.
The skilled person must be able to practice the invention based on the prior disclosure.
Outcome:
Prior art hinted at general chemical class but did not disclose the specific compound and dosage, so anticipation failed.
Principle:
Anticipation requires enablement and sufficiency in prior art; hints or broad classes are insufficient.
4. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd (US, 1998)
Facts:
Patent on an anti-cholesterol drug.
Roche argued the patent was anticipated by previous scientific publications.
Legal Issue:
Did prior publications disclose all elements of the claimed invention?
Court’s Approach:
US courts require single reference anticipation: all features of the claim must be disclosed in one prior art source.
Even if multiple prior arts suggest the invention, combining them is not anticipation (it may support obviousness, not anticipation).
Outcome:
The court ruled in favor of Bristol-Myers. Prior publications did not disclose all aspects of the invention.
Principle:
In the US, anticipation is strict: all claim elements must be disclosed in a single prior art reference.
5. Bayer Corporation v Union of India & Ors. (2009) Delhi High Court
Facts:
Patent for a pharmaceutical composition by Bayer.
The patent was challenged, claiming prior art in scientific journals anticipated the invention.
Court’s Approach:
Delhi High Court emphasized anticipation vs. obviousness:
Prior art can anticipate only if it fully discloses the invention.
If prior art requires additional experimentation or selection, it is not anticipation.
Outcome:
Court ruled that prior art was suggestive but did not disclose exact composition, so patent was not anticipated.
Principle:
Prior art that requires selection, optimization, or experimentation does not destroy novelty.
6. Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997, US)
Facts:
Patent for a recombinant DNA molecule.
Opponent claimed prior scientific publications anticipated the patent.
Court’s Approach:
US Court of Appeals required:
Prior art must describe the invention in full, allowing a skilled person to practice it.
Anticipation is stricter than obviousness; the prior art must disclose all elements explicitly or inherently.
Outcome:
Prior publications disclosed DNA sequences generally but not the exact sequence claimed, so anticipation failed.
Principle:
Exact disclosure is key; general hints or partial sequences do not anticipate.
Key Takeaways from These Cases
| Case | Jurisdiction | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Roche v Cipla | India | Anticipation requires exact disclosure with enablement. Hints are not enough. |
| Novartis v Union of India | India | Structural similarity alone does not mean anticipation. Exact compound disclosure is required. |
| SmithKline v Apotex | UK | Prior art must enable the skilled person to practice the invention. |
| Bristol-Myers v Roche | US | Single prior art reference must disclose all claim elements. |
| Bayer v Union of India | India | Suggestive prior art requiring experimentation does not anticipate. |
| Genentech v Novo Nordisk | US | Exact disclosure or inherent presence is required; partial hints insufficient. |
Summary of Anticipation Principles
Exact Disclosure: Prior art must show all claim elements clearly and enable a skilled person to practice the invention.
Single Reference Rule (US): All elements must be disclosed in one reference.
Enablement: Prior art must teach how to make and use the invention without undue experimentation.
Hints or suggestions are insufficient: Mere suggestions, broad classes, or structural analogues do not anticipate.
Anticipation vs. Obviousness: If the invention is suggested but requires inventive effort, it’s obviousness, not anticipation.
RELATED Blog
comments