英国专利因无效案件修正后，如何查找最终有效的专利文本

为了解GB2297550的最终的权利要求，在英国知识产权局查找GB2297550的法律状态信息，得如下信息。 通过检索它的专利公报，蓝色部分可以查出来。但是我没法查出02.04.2004的具体修改内容，还有红色标识部分没有在公报上查出来。敬请高手指点。

REGISTER ENTRY FOR GB2297550

Form 1 Application No GB9601917.9  filing date 31.01.1996

Priorities claimed:
     06.02.1995 in United Kingdom - doc: 9502297
     17.02.1995 in United Kingdom - doc: 9503112
     15.05.1995 in United Kingdom - doc: 9509807

Title NOVEL COMPOUNDS

Applicant/Proprietor
    SMITHKLINE BEECHAM P.L.C., Incorporated in the United Kingdom, New
    Horizons Court, Great West Road, BRENTFORD, Middlesex, TW8 9EP, United
    Kingdom                                              [ADP No. 05800974002]

Inventors
    VICTOR WITOLD JACEWICZ, SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PHARMACEUTICALS, Old Powder
    Mills, Leigh, TONBRIDGE, Kent, TN11 9AN, United Kingdom
                                                         [ADP No. 06929079001]

    NEAL WARD, SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PHARMACEUTICALS, Old Powder Mills, Leigh,
    TONBRIDGE, Kent, TN11 9AN, United Kingdom            [ADP No. 06929087001]

Classified to
     C2C U1S
     C07D A61K

Address for Service
    PETER P. LAWTON, SMITHKLINE BEECHAM P.L.C., SB House, Great West Road,
    BRENTFORD, Middlesex, TW8 9BD, United Kingdom        [ADP No. 06775449001]

Publication No GB2297550 dated 07.08.1996

Examination requested 31.01.1996

Grant of Patent (Notification under Section 18(4)) 11.03.1997
    Publication of notice in the Official Journal (Patents) (Section 25(1))
    09.04.1997
    Title of Granted Patent PAROXETINE HYDROCHLORIDE ANHYDRATE SUBSTANTIALLY
    FREE OF BOUND ORGANIC SOLVENT

________________________________________________________________________________

08.12.2000 Application to amend specification under Section 27 filed on
           07.12.2000

17.04.2001 Specification amended under Section 27 on 17.04.2001

17.06.2002 Application under Section 32 filed on 13.06.2002

26.06.2002 Notice of exclusive licence  to
           GLAXOSMITHKLINE UK LIMITED, Incorporated in the United Kingdom, 980
           GREAT WEST ROAD, BRENTFORD, MIDDLESEX, TW8 9GS, United Kingdom
                                                         [ADP No. 08408692001]
           dated 30.05.2002. Form 21/77 and documents filed on GB2297550.

01.08.2002 Application for amendments under Section 75 filed on 31 July 2002

18.10.2002 Notification of change of Address For Service name and address of
           PETER P. LAWTON, SMITHKLINE BEECHAM P.L.C., SB House, Great West
           Road, BRENTFORD, Middlesex, TW8 9BD, United Kingdom
                                                         [ADP No. 06775449001]
           to
           GLAXOSMITHKLINE, Corporate Intellectual Property CN.25.1, 980 Great
           West Road, BRENTFORD, Middlesex, TW8 9GS, United Kingdom
                                                         [ADP No. 08072555004]
           dated 15.03.2002. Official evidence filed on EP0543909

19.12.2003 Application under Section 32 filed on 17.12.2003

02.01.2004 Notification of termination dated 11.12.2003 of a licence whose
           registration is entered at 26.06.2002. Form 21/77 and documents
           filed on EP0223403.

06.01.2004 Notice of exclusive licence  to
           GLAXO GROUP LIMITED, Incorporated in the United Kingdom, Glaxo
           Wellcome House, Berkeley Avenue, GREENFORD, Middlesex, UB6 0NN,
           United Kingdom                                [ADP No. 00473587003]
           dated 01.01.2003. Form 21/77 and documents filed on GB2297550.

06.01.2004 Correction to the entry dated 06.01.2004, the date of the exclusive
           licence is 11.12.2003

07.01.2004 Notice of non-exclusive licence  to
           GLAXOSMITHKLINE UK LIMITED, Incorporated in the United Kingdom, 980
           GREAT WEST ROAD, BRENTFORD, MIDDLESEX, TW8 9GS, United Kingdom
                                                         [ADP No. 08408692001]
           dated 23.07.2003. Form 21/77 and documents filed on GB2297550.

07.01.2004 Correction to the entry dated 07.01.2004, the date of the
           non-exclusive sub-liceence is 11.12.2003

02.04.2004 Order dated 8 December 2003 allowing amendments under Section 75
           (HC 2002 No. C02937 and HC 2002 No C03101)

02.04.2004 Order dated 18 December 2003 ordered the patent (as amended
           pursuant to the order dated 8 December 2003) be revoked.
           Revocation stayed pending appeal.

20.12.2006 By Order of the Court of Appeal on 29.11.2004 appeal in the
           revocation action allowed (patent maintained in amended form)
           (Appeal No. A3/2003/2722)
        **** END OF REGISTER ENTRY ****

________________________________________________________________________________

RENEWALS DATA

           Date Filed             31.01.1996

           Date Not in Force

           Date of Last Renewal   12.12.2007

           Year of Last Renewal   13

           Next Renewal Date      31.01.2009

           Status                 PATENT IN FORCE

此案件A告B侵权,B无效A的专利,后来A的专利在修改的基础上维持有效,
此时法院判B不侵权.

wlz581可以先看看是不是这个案件/诉讼   然后我再看看能找到修改后的文本不?

2004 WL 2866191 (CA (Civ Div)), [2005] F.S.R. 23, (2005) 28 I.P.D. 28,003, [2004] EWCA Civ 1568

(c) Sweet & Maxwell Limited
Apotex Europe Ltd v SmithKline Beecham Plc
Also known as:
SmithKline Beecham Plc v Apotex Europe Ltd
(CA (Civ Div)) Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
29 November 2004

Where Reported
Summary
Legislation Cited
History of the Case
Citations to the Case
Case Comments

Where Reported

[2004] EWCA Civ 1568

[2005] F.S.R. 23

(2005) 28(2) I.P.D. 28003

2004 WL 2866191

Summary

Subject: Intellectual property

Keywords: Experiments; Expert witnesses; Insufficiency; Inventive step; Novelty; Patents; Purposive interpretation

Catchphrases: patents; infringement; patent for paroxetine hydrochloride anhydrate not invalid by reason of anticipation or

obviousness

Abstract: The appellant (S) appealed against a decision ([2003] EWHC 2939, [2004] F.S.R. 26) that the respondents (R) had not

infringed S\'s patent for paroxetine hydrochloride anhydrate substantially free of bound organic solvent and that the patent

was invalid. The claims of the patent were for a process for the preparation of paroxetine hydrochloride anhydrate

substantially free of isopropyl alcohol, which comprised crystallising paroxetine hydrochloride in an organic solvent or

mixture of organic solvents which formed a solvate with the paroxetine hydrochloride and which were not removable by

conventional drying techniques thereafter displacing the solvated solvent or solvents using a displacing agent. R submitted

that (1) the patent was anticipated by or obvious in the light of prior art, namely a United Kingdom application for a patent

for paroxetine hemihydrate and a United States patent for erythromycin; (2) R\'s process was not within the claims in S\'s

patent.

Summary: Held, allowing the appeal in part, that (1) the patent was not anticipated by the previous UK patent application.

There was no clear instruction to displace residual solvent. Repeating the example given in the application, using a small

amount of isopropyl alcohol produced hemihydrate, not anhydrate. Nor was the patent obvious in the light of the UK

application. There were no additions or alterations to the recipe which would be made by the ordinary skilled man and which

would produce the anhydrate with bound isopropyl alcohol removed. The patent was not obvious in the light of the US patent,

which related to the issue of displacement, since the ordinary skilled man attempting to make anhydrate did not know about

the problem of bound solvent as such. Putting S\'s patent together with the erythromycin patent involved impermissibly

combining two documents, the separate contents of which were not common general knowledge. (2) A displacing agent was an

agent which displaced the solvent of solvation from the material in which it was bound so as to reduce the amount of solvent

of solvation to a level lower than that achievable by drying. The patent was based on a particular discovery that the bound

solvent could be removed in a slurry with an appropriate agent. R\'s process did not work in that way. It involved treating

with acetone, which was specifically mentioned in the patent as the sort of solvent which formed unremovable solvate.

Therefore the patent could not be referring to acetone as a displacing agent. Therefore R\'s process did not infringe.

Judge: Ward, L.J.; Arden, L.J.; Jacob, L.J.

Counsel: For the appellants: Andrew Waugh QC, Justin Turner, Geoffrey Pritchard. For the respondents: Antony Watson QC, Colin

Birss, Thomas Mitcheson

Solicitor: For the appellants: Simmons & Simmons. For the respondents: Taylor Wessing

Legislation Cited

Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998 3132) Part 63
Patents Act 1977 (c.37) Art. 54
Patents Act 1977 (c.37) Art. 56
Patents Act 1977 (c.37) s. 1(1)(a)
Patents Act 1977 (c.37) s. 1(1)(b)
Patents Act 1977 (c.37) s. 2
Patents Act 1977 (c.37) s. 2(1)
Patents Act 1977 (c.37) s. 2(2)
Patents Act 1977 (c.37) s. 3

History of the Case

Direct History

Apotex Europe Ltd v SmithKline Beecham Plc, [2003] EWHC 2939 (Pat); [2004] F.S.R. 26; (2004) 27(2) I.P.D. 27014; 2003 WL

23014740 (Ch D (Patents Ct))

Reversed in part by

-->Apotex Europe Ltd v SmithKline Beecham Plc, [2004] EWCA Civ 1568; [2005] F.S.R. 23; (2005) 28(2) I.P.D. 28003; 2004 WL

2866191 (CA (Civ Div))

Citations to the Case

Considered by

Actavis Ltd v Merck & Co Inc, [2007] EWHC 1311 (Pat); (2007) 30(7) I.P.D. 30049 (Ch D (Patents Ct))

Case Comments

Error of fact; Inventive step; Novelty; Patents; Pharmaceuticals. Patents: anticipation and obviousness - whether \"error of

principle\" involved. E.I.P.R. 2005, 27(3), N68-70
Inventive step; Novelty; Patents; Pharmaceuticals. Patents: Apotex not infringing GlaxoSmithkline paroxetine patent. B.S.L.R.

2004/05, 7(2), 102- 103
Inventive step; Novelty; Patents; Pharmaceuticals. Multi issue case. C.I.P.A.J. 2004, 33(12), 706-707
END OF DOCUMENT

权利要求的 修改如下

The Patent in Suit

12. This was applied for in 1996. Its title is \"aroxetine hydrochloride anhydrate substantially free of bound organic solvent.\" In its broadest form it was an attempt to gain patent protection for the anhydrate sufficiently pure to pass regulatory approval. As I have said, following the BASF litigation it was considerably amended -- broadly down to particular processes for making the anhydrate free of solvent.
13. Claims 1 and 2 (as amended) read:
1. A process for the preparation of paroxetine hydrochloride anhydrate substantially free of IPA which comprises crystallising paroxetine hydrochloride in an organic solvent or mixture of organic solvents which form a solvate with the paroxetine hydrochloride and which are not removable by conventional drying techniques thereafter displacing the solvated solvent or solvents using a displacing agent.
2. A process for the preparation of paroxetine hydrochloride anhydrate substantially free of bound organic solvent which comprises displacing the solvated solvent or solvents from a paroxetine hydrochloride solvate using a displacing agent.\"

liugang203 wrote:
权利要求的 修改如下

The Patent in Suit

12. This was applied for in 1996. Its title is \"aroxetine hydrochloride anhydrate substantially free of bound organic solvent.\" In its broadest form it was an attempt to gain patent protection for the anhydrate sufficiently pure to pass regulatory approval. As I have said, following the BASF litigation it was considerably amended -- broadly down to particular processes for making the anhydrate free of solvent.
13. Claims 1 and 2 (as amended) read:
1. A process for the preparation of paroxetine hydrochloride anhydrate substantially free of IPA which comprises crystallising paroxetine hydrochloride in an organic solvent or mixture of organic solvents which form a solvate with the paroxetine hydrochloride and which are not removable by conventional drying techniques thereafter displacing the solvated solvent or solvents using a displacing agent.
2. A process for the preparation of paroxetine hydrochloride anhydrate substantially free of bound organic solvent which comprises displacing the solvated solvent or solvents from a paroxetine hydrochloride solvate using a displacing agent.\"

是针对这两项权利要求再起官司，最后专利权人了修改了它的权利要求，专利继续有效。所以不知它最后的权利要求是什么样子了。
权利要求的最终状态是否应该有相应的文本，我通过专利公报可以查得这个专利以前的一些修改情况，但是最后一次修改的没有查到。由于只能通过文本检索，非常容易漏查。
另外，对于英国的专利公报尚且支持文本检索，中国的专利公报还是图像格式，根本就不能通过进行检索，这种情况不是不能通过上网解决了？

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1568.html&query=2,297,550&method=boolean

后续的案件很多
但是没有找到再次修改的权利要求

抱歉!