date:Jun 27, 2012
t first found that Wrigley had not infringed Cadburys patent because Wrigleys W-23 was not an N-substituted p-methane carboxamide as expressed in Cadburys patent.
However, it concluded that Wrigleys patent was invalid on the grounds of anticipation and obviousness based on separate patents and studies unrelated to Cadbury's 1989 patent.
In patent law, anticipation occurs when an invention with substantially the same structure and function has already been patented or has a patent pending.
An