Sharp and Dohme Inc. v.
copyright 2010 Donald M. Cameron, Cameron MacKendrick LLP
The Cripps Question, as posed by Sir Stafford Cripps in argument, was [at p. 163]:
“Was it obvious to any skilled chemist in the state of chemical knowledge existing at the date of the patent that he could manufacture valuable therapeutic agents by making the higher resorcinols by the use of the condensation and reduction processes described. If the answer is ‘No’ then the patent is valid, if ‘Yes’ the patent is invalid.”
At p. 173:
"The real question is: was it for all practical purposes obvious to any skilled chemist in the state of chemical knowledge existing at the date of the patent... that he could manufacture valuable therapeutic agents by making the high alkyl resorcinols."
per Sargeant L.J. at p. 191:
“… what the Plaintiffs really did was, not to invent anything themselves, but only to verify, in the four specific cases described in the Specification, the predictions of Nencki, Clemmensen and Johnson. As regards the rest of the higher alkyl resorcinols, the Plaintiffs have not added anything whatever to the information already disclosed in the prior publications.”
Cameron's IT Law: Home Page; Index
Cameron's Canadian Patent & Trade Secrets Law: Home Page; Index
JurisDiction Home Page