According to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), ‘biologics’ means ‘any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use’. Related fields are bioengineering, biomedical engineering, biomanufacturing, molecular engineering. The application of patent law to biotechnological inventions has to deal with a number of particularities. Are biological materials mere ‘discoveries’, and therefore not patentable or man-made ‘inventions’? Limitations to patent rights, in particular a research and experimental use exception, have been considered important for innovation.
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s judgment that HGS’ patent relating to a new protein called Neutrokine-α was invalid for lack of industrial application. The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court’s determination that uses for Neutrokine-α disclosed in the patent were not plausible at the time the patent was filed as…
The case concerned the validity of a ‘selection patent’. The Court of Appeal held that there is no special approach to be adopted in determining the validity of selection patents and that UK law should be consistent with EPO jurisprudence. For novelty, a prior disclosure of a large class of compounds does not take away…
The Federal Court of Justice presented the following questions to the European Court of Justice: 1. How should the term ‘human embryos’ in Article 6 para. 2 lit. c Directive 98/44 EC be understood? a) Are all development stages of human life from the fertilisation of an egg cell included or are additional conditions required…
Correction of a letter of withdrawal under Rule 139 EPC is only possible if the public has not yet been officially informed about the withdrawal. A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.
In case of parallel proceedings before a national court and the Boards of Appeal, parties should inform both tribunals of this position as early as possible. In order to avoid duplication of proceedings, the parties should ask the appropriate tribunal for acceleration. Whether acceleration is requested by one party, or both or all parties in…
This decision of the Board of Appeal covers two questions of interest: 1) May an Opposition Division include an obiter dictum in its decision? (The answer in this case is yes.) 2) To what extent is amendment in the background section of the description allowed in a divisional application? A full summary of this case…
1. According to the EPC, the right to object to a member of a Board of Appeal or of the Enlarged Board of Appeal is reserved to the party to the proceedings who suspects partiality in such a member. 2. It remains nevertheless that pursuant to Article 4(1) RPEBA, if the Enlarged Board of Appeal…
Following decision G 1/03, the Board concluded that a disclaimer that is used to remove subject-matter falling under the prohibition of Article 53(a) EPC in combination with Rule 28(c) EPC, is allowable. The full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.
The Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court’s finding of non-infringement, holding Napp’s divisional patents, relating to controlled release formulations of a painkiller called oxycodone, to be valid and infringed by Ratiopharm’s and Sandoz’s ‘Cimex’ product. The Court of Appeal’s finding of infringement contrasts with decisions in Germany where the German designation of the…
When the transitional provisions for EPC 2000 are silent, the Board has to establish which legal text is applicable. In that case the Board has to take into account that it is undesirable to use both different versions of the EPC over a prolonged period of time and that there is no indication that the…
