This module seeks to equip students with a body of essential knowledge of national patent law, set within a regional and international context, sufficient to enable students to understand the core concepts that operate in and influence this area.  The focus will be on the law of the UK and that of other member states of the European Patent Convention, as illustrative of the essential features of patent law.  During the course of the module, students will acquire and develop a set of intellectual tools which will enable them to critically engage with both primary and secondary materials relating to patents.  For students who have previously studied any branch of intellectual property law, the module will considerably enhance their existing knowledge, skills and understanding but the module does not presuppose any existing experience and is equally suited to students new to the subject.

The module consists of a structured series of exercises designed to develop st udents’ knowledge and understanding of patent law and the reflective and analytic skills necessary to critically engage with the subject.  Students will work individually and in on-line discussion groups on a range of topics central to patent law.  The module begins with a study of the theoretical economic justifications for patent protection before moving on to a consideration of the substantive law and in particular how patentability is made conditional on an invention being new, involving an inventive step and being capable of industrial application, and how these terms have been understood an applied in the UK.  There follows a consideration of the moral objections that have been raised to the patenting of certain biotechnological inventions, and the problems that have arising in accommodating innovative developments in software and in both cases the often heated debates amongst the European member states that have surrounded attempts to harmonize these areas of patent law.  There follows a consideration of the requirement that an inventor must fully disclose his claimed invention if he is secure a patent, and the way in which courts have used this requirement to limit excessive claim breadth.  Attention is then given to problems in claims interpretation in the context of infringement in which the UK’s (and European) approach is contrasted with that taken in the United States.  The course concludes with a consideration of international debates surrounding patents for pharmaceuticals and restricted access to medicines especially as this affects developing countries.

(LO1) By the end of this module the student will be able to:

(LO2) Demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the international treaties, European and national legislation and case law that influences and forms UK patent law;

(LO3) Demonstrate an ability to critically appreciate the significance of cases that develop, and legislative reforms that amend, UK and European patent law;

(LO4) Understand the key concepts that form the foundation of this subject area;

(LO5) Understand the key policies and other influences that act to shape this subject area;

(LO6) Appreciate aspects of the international dimension of the subject with particular reference to access to medicines and health care in developing countries;

(LO7) Conduct effective research, including the use of legal information retrieval systems, to locate and collate information about the law applicable in a given situation;

(LO8) Develop a critical commentary on the material located and present it to a high standard, adopting appropriate disciplinary conventions.

(S1) Critical analysis appropriate for advanced level masters study.

(S2) Problem-solving skills applicable to complex theoretical and practical contexts.

(S3) Time management and prioritisation skills by working to deadlines.

(S4) Individual and group communication skills by presentations in an online environment (e.g. the virtual classroom).

(S5) Take responsibility for independent learning agenda.

(S6) Reading, analysing and synthesising different viewpoints, becoming familiar with different viewpoints and presenting findings/conclusions in clear, comprehensible, structured format.

(S7) Critical skills with regard to the merits of particular arguments and making reasoned choices between alternative solutions or arguments in all modules and dissertation.

Week One:  Theories and Economic Underpinnings of Patent Law

Primary material:
Fritz Machlup, An Economic Review of the Patent System. Study No. 15 of The United States Subcommittee on Patent, Trademarks and Copyrights . (Washington DC, US Government Printing Office, 1958) ( http://www.mises.org/etexts/patentsystem.pdf ); and Chapter 11, ‘The Economics of Patent Law’, in Landes and Posner, The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law (Cambridge Mass.: Belknap, 2003).
Expected Responses: DQI plus 3-5 DQF
Study packs to include short lectures on patent theory and extracts from other journal articles exploring the economics of the patent system.
Assignment: HA – Students should write an essay aimed at reflecting on whether it is now possible to reach a more concrete conclusion as to the economic benefits of the patent system than that reached by Machlup in his 1958 report.

Week Two: The Significance of the European Patent Convention and Novelty

Primary material:  On the significance of the EPC:  Merrell Dow v. Norton [1996] RPC 76; Actavis Ltd v Merck & Co Inc [2008] EWCA Civ 444. On Novelty: Synthon BV v. Smithkline Beecham Plc [2005] UKHL 59; Merrell Dow v. Norton [1996] RPC 76; and Lux Traffic Controls Ltd v. Pike Signals Ltd [1993] RPC 107.
Expected Responses: DQI plus 3-5 DQF
Study packs to include short lectures on these cases, extracts from the EPC (preamble in particular) and a sample patent specification and other cases in which the issue of novelty has been considered. 
Assignment:  HA – Students should write an essay explaining what they understand by the term ‘enabling disclosure’.

Week Three: Inventive Step

Primary material: On the assessment generally Pozzoli SpA v BDMO SA [2007] EWCA Civ 588.  On the characteristics of the hypothetical addressee Rockwater Ltd v. Technip France SA [2004] EWCA (Civ) 381. 0; On what amounts to ‘common general knowledge’ Beloit Technologies Inc . v. Valmet Paper Machinery Inc [1997] RPC 489.  On relevant factors in deciding obviousness Haberman v. Jackel International Ltd [1999] FSR 683
Expected Responses: DQI plus 3-5 DQF
Study packs to include short lectures on the primary source material and other cases in which the issue of obviousness has been considered.
Assignment:  HA – Students should write an essay explaining and illustrating the factors identified by Laddie J in Haberman v. Jackal as relevant to deciding whether a claimed invention is obvious to a person skilled in the relevant art.

Week Four: Industrial Applicability and Excluded Subject-Matter

Primary material: On industrial applicability: Thompson’s Application [2005] EWHC 3065 and Eli Lilly v. Human Genome [2008] EWHC 1903.
On biotechnological inventions and moral objections to patentability:   OD/94 Relaxin/Ho ward Florey Res.Inst. (OJEPO, 1995, 388); T19/90 Harvard / Onco-Mouse (OJ EPO 1990, 476): T356/93 Plant Cells/Plant Genetic Systems (OJ EPO 1995, 545) and t he EPO’s Opposition Division in considering the Onco-Mouse (D ecision of the Opposition Division , 7th November 2001 (OJ EPO 2003, 419) ).    
Students should also explore the legislative history leading to the eventual adoption of Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (OJ L213, 30/07/1998, p.0013) and its rejected predecessor.
Expected Responses: DQI plus 3-5 DQF
Study packs to include short lecture notes on these cases, other cases in which the issue of diagnostic and surgical methods is in issue, and extracts from journal articles exploring the moral objections to the patenting of biotechnological inventions. 
Assignment: HA – students should write an essay exploring the arguments for and against the prohibition on patents for immoral inven tions

Week Five: Substantive Application Formalities: Sufficiency of Disclosure

Primary material:  Generics (UK) Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S [2008] EWCA Civ 311; Biogen v. Medeva [1997] RPC 1; No Fume v. Pitchford (1935) 52 RPC 231. 
Expected Responses: DQI plus 3-5 DQF
Study packs to include lecture notes on these cases
Assignment:  IP students should write an interim report aimed at explaining the relationship between claim breadth and sufficiency of disclosure.

Week Six: The Concept of Invention and Computer-implemented inventions .

Primary material:  Symbian Ltd v Comptroller [2008] EWCA Civ 1066; Aerotel Ltd v. Telco Holdings Ltd and Macrossan’s Application [2006] EWCA Civ 1371.  Students should also explore the heated debate in the EU that surrounded the proposed harmonisation of the law on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions and which ended by the European Parliament’s overwhelming vote to re ject the Council’s common position on the software patent directive ( Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Patentability of Computer-implemented Inventions , COM (2002) 92 final). 
Expected Responses: DQI plus 3-5 DQF
Study packs to include short lecture notes on these and related cases, a selection of European Patent Office decisions on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions and extracts from journal articles that explore this subject-matter.  Also extracts from the commentary on the failed software patent directive.
Assignment: IP - Begin the collection of materials for the final assignment.

Week Seven : Infringement

Primary material.  On the position in the UK and Europe:  Kirin-Amgen Inc v. Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2004] UKHL 46; Mayne Pharma v. Pharmacia Italia [2005] EWCA Civ 137.  Catnic Components  v. Hill & Smith  [1982] RPC 183 and Improver v . Re mmington [1990] FSR 181.
On the position in the United States:  Graver Tank & Mfg Co v. Linde Air Products Co 339 US 605 (1950); Warner-Jenkinson Co v. Hilton Davis , 520 US 17 (1997); and Festo Corp V. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyokabushiki Co . 535 US 722 (2002).
Expected Responses: DQI plus 3-5 DQF
Study packs to include lectures notes and extracts from journal articles dealing with the evolution of the approach to claims construction in the UK and US.
Assignment:  Students should submit an interim report reflecting on whether the House of Lords decision in Biogen v. Medeva is a manifestation of the principle that a patent specification should be interpreted in a way which combines a fair protection for the patentee with a reasonable degree of certainty for third parties.

Week Eight: International Aspects of Patent Law (The WTO TRIPs Agreement, Doha and Access to Medicines)

Primary material:  WTO TRIPs Agreement, especially Articles 27-34; Doha Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health, adopted on 14 November 2001; WTO Dispute Settlement Panel Decision in Canada-Patents (WT/DS114 ) noting in particular the panel’s comments on the scope of the Art 30 TRIPs.
Expected Responses: DQI plus 3-5 DQF
Study packs to include lectures notes and extracts from journal articles and other commentary dealing with the negotiations surrounding the conclusion of the TRIPs agreement and subsequent evaluation and criticism by way of background to the negotiations leading to the Doha Declaration.   
Assignment:  IP - Students should submit a final report reflecting on whether the way UK courts read patent specifications, both during prosecution and post-grant, combines a fair protection for the patentee with a reasonable degree of certainty for third parties.

Assessment Methods
Contribution to virtual classroom discussion; written assignments; individual project – interim report and final project.

Teaching Method 1 - Online Discussions Description: Weekly Online Discussions and Assignments in Virtual Classroom