Kerrick / iStockphoto.com
As the UK Supreme Court reverses a Court of Appeal decision relating to sufficiency, the ruling leaves patent applicants in a potentially difficult position, argues David Fyfield of Charles Russell Speechlys.
In 2001, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals filed patents for transgenic mice, which are used to produce antibodies for the treatment of humans. Thirteen years later the company sued Kymab when it produced its own genetically modified mice, for an infringement of its patents.
Kymab contested the validity of the patents, on the grounds of “insufficiency”. It is a requirement of UK patent law and of the European Patent Convention (EPC) that a patent application has to disclose an invention in a manner which is sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art (article 83 of the EPC and section 14 of the Patents Act 1977).
To continue reading this article and to access our full archive, digital magazines and special reports you will need a subscription.
If you have already subscribed please login.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription we can add you into, please email Atif at email@example.com
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
For access to the complete website and archive choose '12 MONTH SUBSCRIPTION'. For a free, two-week trial select ‘TWO WEEK FREE TRIAL’.
Supreme Court, Regeneron, Kymab, Charles Russell Speechlys, applicants, principles, David Fyfield, ruling, Pharmaceuticals