BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> Virulite Ltd (Patent) [2010] UKIntelP o05810 (12 February 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2010/o05810.html
Cite as: [2010] UKIntelP o5810, [2010] UKIntelP o05810

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


Virulite Ltd [2010] UKIntelP o05810 (12 February 2010)

For the whole decision click here: o05810

Patent decision

BL number
O/058/10
Concerning rights in
GB 2415387
Hearing Officer
Mr S Probert
Decision date
12 February 2010
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Virulite Ltd
Provisions discussed
Section 4A, section 3, section 14(5)
Keywords
Excluded fields (allowed), Inventive step, Support
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The invention concerned a method of cosmetically treating skin using light of a very specific, narrow wavelength (1072nm) to remove wrinkles caused by the natural ageing process. The Hearing Office considered the EPO and UK caselaw and concluded that the fundamental test for inventions in this field is whether the patent, if granted, would interfere with the work of a medical or veterinary practitioner in their treatment of patients? In this case, he found that it would not, and therefore the invention was not excluded as a method of treatment by surgery or therapy.

The method of the invention may be performed using existing apparatus already available to the public, and which is the subject of the applicant’s earlier patent. Nevertheless, the earlier patent only concerns the treatment of pathological conditions (eg. herpetic infections) and there was no reason for the person skilled in the art to consider that it might be used in an alternative, non-pathological, purely cosmetic treatment. The Hearing Officer also accepted the applicant’s argument that the use of light to treat wrinkled skin is counter-intuitive.

Finally, the Hearing Officer found that the claims, as amended, were support by the description. The case was remitted to the examiner for the examination process to be concluded.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2010/o05810.html