Accord Healthcare Limited & Ors v The Regents of The University of California & Anor

Obviousness must be considered on the facts of each case, considering factors like motivation to solve a problem, research avenues, effort, and expectation of success.

Generics (UK) Ltd v H Lundbeck [2007] EWHC 1040 (Pat)

Whether something was ‘obvious to try’ with a reasonable prospect of success is relevant, but it's not required that success is manifest; routine tests with unpredictable results can be obvious.

Actavis v ICOS [2019] UKSC 15

Multiple obvious avenues don't make an obvious route less obvious; value judgments in research programs don't necessarily point against obviousness.

Actavis v ICOS [2019] UKSC 15

Routine testing with a pre-determined target is sufficient for obviousness, even if the result is unexpected.

Actavis v ICOS [2019] UKSC 15

A patentee cannot rely on a perceived problem in taking a particular course of action unless the patent overcomes that problem.

Philips v Asustek [2019] EWCA Civ 2230

A ‘golden bonus’ doesn't make a patent valid if the invention was obvious for another purpose.

Actavis v ICOS [2019] UKSC 15

A seemingly small structural change isn't automatically an obviously immaterial one in medicinal chemistry.

Various cases cited in [197]-[211]

The claimed invention, not a watered-down version, must involve an inventive step.

Conor v Angiotech [2008] UKHL 49

The patent monopoly should be justified by the actual technical contribution to the art.

Takeda v Roche [2019] EWHC 1911 (Pat)

A disclosure must demonstrate that a claimed therapeutic effect is plausible; a bare assertion or mere possibility isn't enough; reasonable scientific grounds are needed.

Warner-Lambert v Generics [2018] UKSC 56