Inventive Step Requirement - Essay Example

From two different perspectives, the patent system influences the inventions, the inventor, the society, and the incentive of other individuals to introduce their own patents. The patent system can influence the economic system with which inventions are made, the competition between inventors and the whole society and the regulatory forces that generate the patent system. In this case, the UK Patents Office has the responsibility of ensuring that patent regulations are operated and deliver results at all levels of discussion.

In this case, the main factor that influences the patent system is the inventive step requirement. This is the criterion that determines whether an invention is worthy of patent protection, where the invention is patentable only if it involves an inventive step over what was known. This is one of the main problems in the patent requirements section, since deciding whether an invention is inventive (non-obvious) or non-inventive (obvious) can be a tedious act (Bentley and Sherman 439). Despite the fact that the inventive step requirement is the most important, it sometimes serves both sides of the argument. The first part is that the inventive step requirement can lock out potential patents since it determines them to be non-inventive, and sometimes allows too easy patents by virtue of their inventiveness (non-obvious). 

The first case that highlights the issues faced by the patent system is Brugger v Medic-Aid (1996), where Johns-Manville’s patent for an art piece was considered. The opinion was that commercial attractiveness and technical obviousness had to be differentiated, where failure to modify a piece of art for a long period could be due to commercial factors rather than technical problems. The issue of obviousness of the invention or the underlying functions should also be considered, as in Van der Lely v Ruston’s Engineering Co Ltd (1985), where the issue was decided to be ambiguous.

In Structure - Windsurfing International v Tabur Marine [1985] RPC 59, the question of the obviousness of an invention was considered. From section 3 of the Patents Act 1977, it is clearly stated that an invention is considered inventive if it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art. This indicates that the obviousness of an invention must be considered on an objective test, as was indicated by the decision in Biogen Inc v Medeva Plc [1997] RPC 1, where the judge stated that anything inventive done for the first time includes the addition of new ideas to existing knowledge, or using current techniques to do what has never been done before.

In Allmanna Svenska Elektriska AB v The Burntisland Shipbuilding Co Ltd, 69 RPC 63 at page 70, it was decided that the test of the obviousness of an invention should be done regardless of whether the inventor had knowledge of previous art. From this analysis, it is evident that the inventive step for determining the validity of a patent should be considered in all types of patents.