Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

Analysis of the problem and solution approach in patent law; a comparative study in the laws of the European Union, the United Kingdom and Iran

Articles in Press

Document Type : scientific research paper

Authors
Reza Arabzadeh 1
mirghasem jafarzadrh 2
1 Private Law Department, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Behehshti University, Tehran, Iran
10.22034/law.2025.2058087.1639
Abstract
In various legal systems, assessment and establishing the inventive step as a fundamental requirement for patent registration has always been one of the most complex issues in patent law. This complexity stems from the qualitative nature of this criterion, which distinguishes it from other patentability conditions novelty and industrial utility. Accordingly, the judicial and administrative practices of leading countries reveal that a significant portion of patent related disputes revolve around assessing and proving the inventive step. Among the various standards developed to assess the inventive step, the problem and solution approach has been widely accepted as a reliable method due to its systematic structure and relative flexibility. The primary advantage of this approach, compared to other standards, is that it enables a more objective and evidence-based analysis of the invention. However, the practical application of this standard faces several challenges, including difficulties in precisely defining the scope of the technical problem, comprehensively identifying relevant prior art, and distinguishing between obvious and non-obvious solutions. Over time, and with the emergence of newer technologies, these challenges become even more pronounced. In Iran's legal system, despite the explicit mention of the inventive step requirement in the Patent, Industrial Designs, and Trademarks Registration Act of 1386 and the newly enacted Industrial Property Protection Law of 1403, there is no uniform and transparent practice for evaluating this criterion. A random review of registered patents in patent office of Iran indicates that although the patent office primarily follows the problem and solution approach, in practice, the lack of detailed guidelines and a coherent framework has led to inconsistent and sometimes contradictory interpretations of this standard. To address these shortcomings, a comparative study of the practices of international patent offices, such as the European Patent Office and the UK Intellectual Property Office etc., could provide valuable insights.

Highlights

1.        Actavis v Eli Lilly (2015)

2.        Almgren, Lisa. (2010). Inventive Step, Master thesis in comparative law, Law Faculty of University of Lund. Sweden: University of Lund.

3.        Bainbridge, David I. (2010). Intellectual Property. United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.

4.        Beecham Group’s (Amoxycillin) Application (1980) R.P.C. 261 at 291

5.        Biogen Inc. v. Medeva PLC (1997)

6.        CHOU, Chih-Hao. (2016). Comparative Analysis of Inventive Step/Nonobviousness Standard and Case Study Thereof – from the Aspect of “the Problem to Be Solved”. 25: 1-10.

7.        Cornish, W.R. (1999). Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trademarks and Allied Rights. United Kingdom: Sweet & Maxwell.

8.        Dumbraveanu, Radu. (2009). assessment of inventive step, master thesis, Faculty of Law, Lund University. Sweden: University of Lund.

9.        Eli Lilly & Co. v Human Genome Sciences, Inc. (2008) EWHC 1903 (Pat)

10.     European Patent Office. (2019). Case Law of the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office. Germany: Legal Research Service of the Board of Appeal.

11.     Haberman and V & AMP; A marketing limited V. Jackel International limited (1999)   

12.     Hicktons patent syndicate v. patents & machine improvements (1909) 26 R.P.C. 339, CA

13.     Idenix Pharmacuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences (Fed. Cir. 2019)

14.     Jafarzadeh, Mirghasem, & Mahmoudi, Asghar (2005). Substantive Conditions for Patent Protection from the Perspective of Judicial Procedure and the Patent Office. Legal Research Journal, 8 (42): 69-148. (In Persian)

15.     Jafarzadeh, Mirghasem, & Mahmoudi, Asghar (2006). The International Patent Registration System: Contexts and Necessities. Legal Research Journal, 9 (44): 55-107. (In Persian)

16.     Law on Registration of Patents, Industrial Designs and Trademarks, enacted in 2007 (Repealed). (In Persian)

17.     Law on the Protection of Industrial Property, enacted in 2024. (In Persian)

18.     Mirhosseini, Seyed Hassan (2008). Patent Rights. Tehran: Mizan Publishing. (In Persian)

19.     Najafi, Hamed (2017). The Inventive Step in Patent Law. Tehran: Majd Publications. (In Persian)

20.     Patent Certificate No. 74871, for a "Load-Sensitive Brake Pressure Regulator for Vehicles with Hydraulic Brakes Lacking ABS System", Registration Date: 03/05/2012. (In Persian)

21.     Patent Certificate No. 98317, for "Optimization of the Cooling System for Heavy Magnetic Coils", Registration Date: 10/04/2019. (In Persian)

22.     Patent Certificate No. 98542, for a "Child-Lock Lift and Turn Door Preventing Accidental Ingestion of Lethal Substances such as Medicines, Poisons, Detergents, and Acids", Registration Date: 12/05/2019. (In Persian)

23.     Patent Certificate No. 100691, for a "Timing Belt Tear and Wear Warning System with Engine Start Cut-Off", Registration Date: 16/03/2020. (In Persian)

24.     Patent Certificate No. 108699, for a "Quasi-Hybrid Cooling Tower for Reducing Water Consumption", Registration Date: 27/08/2022. (In Persian)

25.     Safaei,S. H. and Darvishzadeh,M. (2024). The Evolution of Intellectual Property Law in Light of Advances in Knowledge and Technology. Research and development in private law, 1(1), 7-19. doi: 10.22034/jpl.2024.718548. (In Persian)

26.     Salehi Zahabi, Jamal (2009). Patent Law: A Comparative Perspective. Tehran: Sahami Publishing Company. (In Persian)

27.     Shakeri,Z. (2024). Some factors affecting the evolution of the intellectual property system: expanding or limiting the scope of rights. Research and development in private law, 1(1), 241-271. doi: 10.22034/jpl.2024.716244. (In Persian)

28.     T 0025/13 () of 20311.2014

29.     T 0026/86 (X-ray apparatus) of 21.5.1987

30.     T 0069/94 (Pharmaceutical composition/BEECHAM) of 18.06.1996

31.     T 0153/97 (Aerosol Formulation/MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING) of 02.12.1998

32.     T 0172/03 (Order management/ RICOH) of 27.11.2003

33.     T 0208/84 (Computer-related invention) of 15.07.1986

34.     T 0211/01 (Hydroxypolyalkene amine/DOVER) of 01.12.2003

35.     T 0211/06 () of 25.04.2007

36.     T 0254/86 (Yellow dyes) of 05.11.1987

37.     T 0268/89 (Magnetic Plaster) of 06.02.1992

38.     T 0270/11 (Kosmetische Zubereitungen/BEIERSDORF) of 06.06.2013

39.     T 0273/92 () of 18.08.1993

40.     T 0334/92 (Benzodioxane derivatives/EISAI) of 23.03.1994

41.     T 0336/07 () of 11.10.2007

42.     T 0465/92 (Aluminium alloys) of 14.10.1994

43.     T 0479/00 (Colouring ceramics/VIGNALI) of 15.02.2002

44.     T 0506/95 () of 05.02.1997

45.     T 0589/95 () of 05.11.1998

46.     T 0603/89 (Marker) of 03.07.1990

47.     T 0606/89 () of 18.09.1990

48.     T 0641/00 (Two identities/COMVIC) of 26.9.2002

49.     T 0725/11 (Combination Antiviral Therapy/GILEAD) of 13.03.2017

50.     T 0914/02 () of 12.07.2005

51.     T 0964/92 (Benzodioxane derivatives/EISAI) of 23.08.1994

52.     T 1000/92 (Bisphenols/SHELL) of 11.05.1994

53.     T 1397/07 (Dimerisation process/NESTLE OIL OYJ) of 06.05.2010

54.     T 1543/06 (Game Machine/ GAMEACCOUNT) of 09.06.2007

55.     T 1693/07 (E-mail printing apparatus/CANON) of 17.02.2012

56.     T 1742/12 (On-demand instantiation/RAYTHEON) of 22.06.2016

57.     T 1761/12 () of 19.12.2017

58.     T 1764/09 () of 08.01.2014

59.     T 2001/12 (Memory Device and its Reading Method) of 29.1.2015

60.     T 2517/11 () of 12.10.2016

Keywords
Inventive step
Invention
Nonobviousness
Solution
Technical problem

Subjects

Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 14 October 2025