![IP-2024-000024 - [2025] EWHC 492 (IPEC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AacSvIO.png){kind=logo}
Conclusion on Soble and inventive step
Conclusion on Soble and inventive step
CJ Medical have not met the evidential burden required to show that the skilled person would in addition have considered the disclosure of Russo regarding a pressure regulating mechanism. It would not have been obvious to the skilled person to modify Soble by adding a pressure regulating mechanism or by using an obturator. Neither claim 1 nor claim 3 of the Patent lacks inventive step over Soble.
- Heading
- Judge Hacon
- The skilled person
- The expert witnesses
- Technical Background
- The Patent
- The claims
- Construction
- Claim 3 – a flexible, deflectable tip
- The prior art
- Soble and Russo
- The law on inventive step
- Inventive step over Soble
- Differences between claim 1 and Soble
- Sleeve v sheath
- No obturator in Soble
- A clamp in Soble instead of a flexible cap
- Conclusion on Soble and inventive step
- Wan
- Piercing stylus, obturator and trocar
- Inventive step of claim 1 over Wan
- Inventive step of claim 3 over Wan
- Added matter
- Method of treatment or diagnosis
- Infringement
- Normal construction
- Sizes 10-13 as equivalents
- Conclusions