Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 22 JULY 2013

So When Is A Patent Claim Too Broad?

In Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Genentech Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 93 the Court of Appeal dismissed the claimants' appeal, rejecting all their arguments in respect of construction, infringement, novelty, inventiveness, and sufficiency.

United KingdomIntellectual Property
Andrew Sharples
Andrew Sharples
Carissa Kendall-Palmer
Carissa Kendall-Palmer

In Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Genentech Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 93 the Court of Appeal dismissed the claimants' appeal, rejecting all their arguments in respect of construction, infringement, novelty, inventiveness, and sufficiency. The court preferred the first instance finding that the patent was valid and infringed. The case therefore confirms that a broad claim encompassing a large number of unexemplified embodiments can be valid and enforceable.

Background

Genentech's patent (EP 1238986) described therapeutic agents for the treatment of a range of diseases by preventing excessive blood vessel growth (angiogenesis or neovascularisation). In particular, it was concerned with Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor antagonist antibodies (anti-VEGF) and the patent claims were limited to treatment of non-neoplastic diseases.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from