The prior art
The prior art
CJ Medical cited three items of prior art in support of its allegation that the Patent lacks inventive step, of which two were relied on at trial:
US Patent No. 6,997,867 B2 (‘Soble’), and
Chinese Utility Model No. CN 203042329 U (‘Wan’).
Soble referred to other patents, including US Patent No. 5,730,727 (‘Russo’). It was agreed that the skilled person should be taken to have read Soble and Russo in combination, although there was a dispute about the relevance of the other patents referred to 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
![IP-2024-000024 - [2025] EWHC 492 (IPEC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AacSvIO.png)