Invention was not “obvious” at the time of its formulation

Patents - application for order revoking Irish designation of European patent on 'inhalation capsules' - three-fold attack on validity of patent - obviousness - insufficiency - AgrEvo - onus on proof on applicant - several relevant proceedings between parties in other European jurisdictions - comity - general observations on obviousness - requirement of an inventive step - notion of 'obvious to try' test to be applied - notional person skilled in the art - pharmaceutical formulation scientist - common general knowledge of such person - distinguished with cited prior art - expert testimony on state of knowledge - written and oral evidence - court's conclusions on use of 'gelatin capsule' - applicable law on nature of 'common knowledge' - whether use of capsules for inhalation was common general knowledge or not - conflicting expert evidence - 'priority date' - identification of the inventive concept - no knowledge of water sensitivity available to notional skilled person at priority date - water concentration figures - applicable scientific methods and tests - alleged obviousness of invention - textbooks make no reference to capsules at time - scientific steps could not have been taken without inventiveness - regulatory constraints will not effect the mindset of a notionally skilled person - concept of 'plausibility' to challenge a patent - applicable caselaw - whether no particular information of test data required and not plausible that patented invention would work across a range of salts - plausibility arguments inconsistent with experimental evidence - credibility as opposed to speculation is required to establish such a threshold test - examination of so-called 'prior art' publications on patented formulation - analyses of evidence lends the court to conclusion that patent revocation order should not be made