In the life sciences sector, defending broad patent claims can be a tricky business, says Gordon Wright.
The English High Court judgment in Lilly v Janssen,  EWHC 1737(Pat) is a timely reminder of the difficulties of defending broad claims in the pharmaceutical and life science area.
Failure to enable the invention to be performed without undue burden is often referred to as “classical insufficiency” and failure to enable the invention to be performed over the whole scope of the claim is often referred to as “excessive claim breadth” (or Biogen) insufficiency.
Janssen was the proprietor of a patent claiming the use of antibodies to the peptide Aß for the treatment of diseases characterised by amyloid deposit, such as Alzheimer’s disease. Lilly sought a declaration that use of the Aß antibody, solanezumab, which Lilly currently has in Phase 3 development for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, would not infringe Janssen’s patent.
You need a subscription to continue reading this content.
To access the full archive, digital magazines and special reports you will need to take out a paid subscription.
News stories up to a week old and feature articles on the day of publication are accessible with a BASIC FREE ACCOUNT.
If you have already subscribed please login.
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
For access to the complete website, archive, and to receive print publications, choose '12 MONTH SUBSCRIPTION'. For a free, two-week trial with full access, select ‘TWO WEEK FREE TRIAL’; and for basic access to the latest news on the website and weekly email news alerts choose the 'BASIC FREE ACCOUNT' registration.
patent claims, EPO, Pfizer, Novartis, Supreme Court, Federal Circuit