在英国，对专利法的普遍批评是，这些法律非常模糊，通常难以理解。2012年Apimed药用蜂蜜有限公司诉bright twake有限公司的案件就是一个这样的案例，有许多不同的看法。本文对初审判决和上诉中对同一方面的判决进行了详细的分析。之所以选择这个案例，是因为它是一个相对较新的案例，并且可以从这个案例的事件中了解许多因素。它还有助于理解专利的可执行性。案例的影响和案例的细节如下所示。这起案件实际上是关于医用敷料中使用蜂蜜的争议。该案例被认为是分析了专利行为的明显性质的判例法。此案由HHJ Fysh QC在专利县法院审理，法院判决该专利未被侵犯。但法官驳回了Brightwake limited公司缺乏新意条款的论点。在本案中，上诉人被指定为持有欧洲专利(英国)第1237 561号(“专利”)的适当人。专利主要规定蜂蜜可以用作医用敷料。
在本案中，被告“Brightwake Ltd .”另一间公司在商业上售卖类似产品，并使用专利概念“Apimed”。Brightwake在这个问题上的立场是，没有真正的侵权行为，它表示，专利是显而易见的，或蜂蜜具有药用价值的概念不是创新或新的。专家证人表示，蜂蜜作为一种药用属性的使用在许多世纪前就有了根源(Li, 2014)。阿皮米德说，蜂蜜没有用于现代医疗保健。根据他们的说法，从1900年起，蜂蜜的药用价值就没有在英国进行商业使用或跟踪研究。他们指出，这使得他们的观念独一无二。他们说，传统的蜂蜜处理包括纱布敷料和他们开发的水胶体敷料，是相当创新和新颖的。为此，在理解显著性和充分性的情况时，使用了Catnic Components Ltd v Hill Smith Ltd  RPC 183 at 242 to 243的案例(Thorne, and Priestley, 2012)。
Within UK, the common critique for the patent law is that the laws are very obscure and is generally difficult to understand. The case of Apimed Medical Honey Ltd v Brightwake Ltd 2012 is one such case that has a number of different perceptions. The initial judgement and the judgement during appeal for the same aspect have been probed in detail in this analysis. This case was selected because it is a relatively newer case and many factors can be understood from the events of this case. It also helps in understanding of the enforceability of the patent. The impact of the case and the details of the case are presented in the following. The case is actually a dispute about Honey used in medical dressing. This case has been considered as the Patenting case law that analyzes the obvious nature. This case came to trail of HHJ Fysh QC in the Patents County Court, judgment that was rendered was that Patent was not infringed. But the judge rejected the lack of novelty clause argument by Brightwake limited. In this case, the appellant was Apimed who is the propriety that held European Patent (UK) No 1,237,561 (“the Patent”). Patent primarily states that Honey can be used as a medical dressing agent.
In this issue, the defendant “Brightwake Ltd another corporation commercially sold similar products and used the patented concept of Apimed”. Brightwake stance on this issue was that there was no real infringement and it stated that the patent was obvious or that the notion of honey having medicinal uses was not innovative or new. The expert witness stated that the usage of honey as a medicinal property had its roots many many centuries ago (Li, 2014). Apimed stated that honey was not used in modern health care. According to their voice, honey’s medicinal properties were not commercially used or followed in UK from 1900. They cited that this makes their notions unique. They had stated that the conventional treatment of honey involved gauze dressing and hydrocolloid dressings developed by them was rather innovative and novel. For this, the case of Catnic Components Ltd v Hill Smith Ltd  RPC 183 at 242 to 243 was used in the argument for understanding about the case of obviousness and sufficiency (Thorne, and Priestley, 2012).