 |
 |
 |
|
France
The Paris Court of Appeal clarifies sufficiency of description for patentability
Air Liquide, Chemoxal, Seppic vs. Cair LGL, SA Sagal et Axcell
(September 12, 2001)
Ruling in a patent opposition matter, the Paris Court of Appeal observed that :
- Lack of description is a ground for invalidity, whereas imperfection of the result is not.
- Description of a patent and the result obtained due to the description in the patent are independent of each other.
- A patentable invention can be considered susceptible of industrial application, even if the result expected by the invention is not achieved.
The Case:
Plaintiff, Air Liquide, Chemoxal, Seppic filed an application for grant of a patent, which was to be used for industrial application. Defendant, Cair LGL, SA Sagal et Axcell alleged that according to Article L.613-25 of the Intellectual Property Law, the patent was invalid since the description of the patent was insufficient to obtain the result described in it.
It was ascertained by the lower Court that it was impossible to obtain the result described without the addition of nitric acid, which was not mentioned in the patent and therefore, as alleged by the defendant the patent, as drafted, did not provide for the result described in it.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the opposition on the grounds that -
The law states that the only requirement for patentability of an invention is that it is capable of industrial application, including agriculture.
A defect in the result described is not a sufficient reason for invalidation .
Validity must be assessed in the light of the invention as described in the patent and not in the light of the product manufactured according to the patent.