top of page

New use for old...

by Georgina Richards

The concept of ‘newness’ or novelty in relation to the patentability of an invention is very particular under patent law.  An invention is regarded as new if it does not form part of what is known as ‘the state of the art’.  The state of the art when considering an invention is taken to comprise of all matter which has, at any time before the priority date of the patent application for the invention, been made available to the public by use, written or oral description, or otherwise, anywhere in the world.  Included in such art are matters contained in prior patent applications.

 

A person merely having an idea about an invention would not be enough to challenge its novelty providing details were not made available to the public.

 

Section 3 of the Act goes on to clarify the second condition relating to patentability of the invention and to introduce the concept of obviousness.  This section provides that an invention shall be taken to involve an inventive step if it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art, having regard to any matter which forms the state of the art.

 

Will a new use for an old invention form part of the state of the art?  The answer will be no if the claims in respect of the ‘new’ use are substantially different to those of the existing invention.  It is interesting to note that the Act does not contain a definition of an invention.  We are left to determine this from the application of the Act in reported cases. In a House of Lords case (Biogen v. Medeva, The Times, 1st November 1996) the four conditions were considered in detail but the judgement fell short of actually stating that something which fulfils the four conditions of patentability could be called an invention.

 

In earlier proceedings before the House of Lords in 1956, relating to the infringement of the patent granted for a writing instrument to Laszlo Biro, Viscount Simonds confirmed that a patentable invention may consist of a new combination of old integers so placed together that by their working inter-relation they produce a new or improved result.

 

Thus a new invention from an existing invention may be patentable if some new technical effect can be shown by the combining of the two inventions in a non-obvious and new way. Thus any new use of an existing invention will always be viewed on its own particular merits and will be examined in the light of what is already known.

Claims of the Indian Government that western scientists are exploiting the healing properties of the spice turmeric raises the question can a new use for an already existing ‘invention’ or product be patented?

 

Turmeric, made from the roots of a plant native to southern India and Indonesia, has been used by the peoples of those countries for generations in cooking and as a dye, but the yellow powder’s healing properties are now the subject of various patent applications.  Similarly, products of the neem tree, which is cultivated throughout India and whose properties as an antiseptic have been known for a number of years, are also the subject of various patent pending applications relating to pesticides.

 

How is a new use for an old ‘invention’ viewed under British law?  Section 1 of the Patents Act 1977 (‘the Act’) provides that a patent may be granted for an invention if four conditions are satisfied.  Namely, that the invention is new; that it involves an inventive step; that it is capable of industrial application and finally that the invention is not an ‘excluded invention’ within the meaning of the Act.

 

The Act provides that certain inventions will not be patentable.  These include those inventions which consist of discoveries, scientific theories, schemes or methods of performing a mental act or playing a game, and those which are covered by copyright.  Also excluded are computer programs and inventions whose publication or exploitation would be expected to encourage offensive or anti-social behaviour.  In addition, a patent will not be granted for any variety of animal and plant.

  • facebook
  • Twitter Clean
  • w-googleplus
IW 0101.png
IW 0201.png
IW 0301.png
IW 0401.png
IW 0501.png
IW 0601.png
IW 0701.png
IW 0801.png
IW 0901.png
IW 1001.png
IW 1101.png
IW 1201.png
IW 1301.png
IW 1401.png

© inventricity.com 2014,2015 - 2016

Warning - We are always delighted to receive information from inventors and companies regarding their wonderful inventions.  However, please do not send us confidential information.  You should not disclose your ideas or inventions before either taking professional advice, or stipulating a binding and specific confidentiality agreement, or filing a patent application at the Intellectual Property Office.  Inventors who disclose the details of their invention before filing will not be able to obtain a valid patent.  This advice applies to any disclosure, no matter how select or reputable the agency.  You should not talk to the press, radio, television or any other media, nor should you enter into competitions/exhibitions, or give lectures/presentations without adequate Intellectual Property Protection.

 

Articles and information produced on this site are concerned with general principles only and should not be construed as specific advice.  Intellectual Property Rights and their commercial development are complex subjects and professional advice should always be sought at the appropriate stage.  Procedures and regulations vary from country to country.  Opinions expressed are those of the individual contributors and not necessarily those of Inventricity.com                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Disclaimer

bottom of page