This is a guest post from Hazel Moir. Hazel’s submission can be viewed here.
I am concerned to read that the absymally low height of the inventive step will not be a primary focus of this review.
It is the very low “inventiveness” requirement for a patent that allows so many evergreening patents to accumulate.
Indeed outside the patent world, the inventiveness standard would be labelled ‘trivial difference” not inventiveness.
Governments have agreed generous monopoly arrangements for the inventors of new pharmaceuticals. Companies should not be allowed to seek unapproved extensions to this by adding a thicket of trivial variations around their core molecule. A proper height to the inventive step would prevent the grant of this thicket of trivial variation patents and thus ensure speedier access of generics to the market once the monopoly period has expired.
I urge the committee to consider recommending the adoption of the standard – a significant advance over what is known – as the standard for the height of the inventive step.