• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Critically analyse what makes for sufficient disclosure in the description of a patentable invention, focusing in particular on Biogen v Medeva and subsequent related cases. Is this a case of one rule for simple products and another for complex product-by-process claims?

Extracts from this document...


The traditional law of insufficiency is derived from the conception of the disclosure in a patent specification as the patentee's consideration to provide to society at large as the quid pro quo for a patent monopoly in a contractual sense[1], and can be traced back to Liradet[2]. The general concept of disclosure in modern insufficiency established thereby was further developed and molded in UK statutory law[3] that most relevantly raises insufficiency as revocation ground[4]. The requirement set out thereby is that a patent specification shall constitute an enabling disclosure of the invention claimed in the claims[5], and thus, a specification is deemed insufficient if a person skilled in the art that follows the express teaching of the disclosure cannot perform the invention at all or without a prolonged, research, enquiry or experiment[6]. In addition, the common law doctrine of undue claim width comprises this insufficiency principle, in particular with regard to claim objections to an unduly breadth relative to the extent of disclosure, i.e. for covetous claiming[7]. The so-called Biogen insufficiency[8] goes further and hearkens back to the development of chemical product claims in the UK?s early 20th century when chemical inventions were limited to product-by-process claims[9]. At those times, any chemical product had to be defined by its distinct method of processing. This said, the development and shortcomings of this particular patent claim category were well known, but although the House of Lords (HoL) ...read more.


claims in which the technical contribution of the invention is the product itself[16], even when only one method to create it is disclosed in the patent specification[17]. Moreover, Lord Hoffmann clarified that with regard to the Biogen insufficiency, the respective statutory provisions and EPC statues as mentioned above do not lead inevitably to the conclusion that simple product claims must also support all methods of creating the product[18]. In conclusion, the marriage of ?sufficiency disclosure? concept to the invention itself as defined in the claims under the clarification in Lundbeck was confirmed in Conor Medsystems[19]. Hereby, it was established that when determining the inventive step, it is only necessary to consider the invention as defined by the claims, and not in the disclosure in the patent specification[20], and therefore, there is still room for debate in this issue, when the scope of invention is to be construed. [1] In other words, in the age of industrialization or in times of a technology leap of industrial or otherwise applicable development, such as nowadays biotech, the proposes of disclosure is, besides to limit the scope of monopoly right granted to the inventor by the claims of the patent, to facilitate technology transfer or diffusion of knowledge. Reference is made to David J. Brennan, ?The Evolution of English Patent Claims as Property Definers? (2005) 4 Intellectual Property Quarterly pp 362-363 [2] Liardet v Johnson Unreported 1778, per Lord Mansfield in ibid supra note 1 p 370 In the late ...read more.


Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S: In search of optimal patent protection: Biogen insufficiency and the chequered history of product claims' (2010) 32 4 E.I.P.R. p 3 [10] Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2004] UKHL 46 [11] Biogen v Medeva [1997] RPC 1 at 47-9 per Lord Hoffmann; contra Molynlcke AB v Proctor & Gamble Ltd [1994] R.P.C. 49; Chiron Corp v Organon Teknika Ltd (No.3) [1994] F.S.R. 202. [12] Tim Leung, 'Generics (UK) Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S: In search of optimal patent protection: Biogen insufficiency and the chequered history of product claims' (2010) 32 4 E.I.P.R. pp 2, 5 [13] Case T-409/91 Exxon/Fuel Oils [1994] E.P.O.R. 149; [1994] OJ EPO 653 at [3.3] which regard to Biogen v Medeva [1997] RPC 1 in Tim Leung, 'Generics (UK) Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S: In search of optimal patent protection: Biogen insufficiency and the chequered history of product claims' (2010) 32 4 E.I.P.R. p 5 [14] Biogen v. Medeva [1997] RPC 1 paras 51, 52 [15] Generics (UK) Limited and others v H Lundbeck A/S [2009] UKHL 12 [16] Generics (UK) Ltd v Lundbeck A/S [2008] EWCA Civ 311; [2008] R.P.C. 19 at [40]. [17] Generics (UK) Ltd v Lundbeck A/S [2008] EWCA Civ 311; [2008] R.P.C. 19 at [35]. [18] Eddy Ventose, 'The House of Lords Clarifies ?Biogen Insufficiency', (2009) 6 3 SCRIPTed <http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol6-3/ventose.asp>accessed on 21 September 2013 p [19] Conor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc [20] Sebastian Moore and Duncan Ribbons, ?The Court of Appeal Clarifies the Law on Sufficiency? (2009) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice p 352. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Intellectual Property Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Intellectual Property Law essays

  1. Copyright Property Law Case. The particular case study that applies to this material is ...

    Hefner is associated with, rather than his group of apprentices. An article from the Center for Social Media makes a point about the nature of a work. "Although nonprofit or academic uses often have good claims to be considered "fair," they are not the only ones.

  2. Intellectual Property Right

    But by putting in a rigorous patent system, the developing countries which are dependent on the resources and knowhow of the developed countries become even more fragile. It does not make sense when someone simply stating that the IPR reforms will stimulate domestic innovation and invention.

  1. Creative Commons - Rebalancing the Copyright Bargain in the Digital Age

    creator plus 70 years.32 This extension was also adopted by Australia through the 2005 US-Australia Free Trade Agreement.33 However, the motivation behind the American Bill was seen by critics to be in response to corporate lobbyists, in this case Disney, seeking to protect royalties from copyright works nearing the end

  2. property law

    As the petitions for equity grew in volume, the Chancellor's work in considering them developed, in the fifteenth century, into a court, the Court of Chancery. The cases considered there were varied and were considered on an individual basis. However, similar cases would tend to be dealt with in a

  1. Consider the idea of inventions the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to ...

    EPO relies on the fact that plants and animals are regulated by EPC Art 53(b). But where is line draw to invoke such limitation on inventions? Hereto, the evaluation of Art.

  2. Trademarks &amp;amp; Intellectual Property Case. when PRU go to register the name Lancashire ...

    scarves without the words ?All Reds? on them would be deemed passing off, in comparison to the ones without the words on the scarves.

  1. Using the patent specification obtained from patent number GB2419438, briefly describe the nature of ...

    If the boat floats in the pond[1], novelty is perfectly aligned with the know state of the art and it is proper appreciated.

  2. What are the key issues in relation to protection of computer-implemented inventions by the ...

    [2] Andres Guadamuz,ÂeThe software patent debate' (2006) 1 3 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice pp 196-197 [3] ibid supra note 2 p 207 [4] EPC Arts. 52(2)(c) 52(3); UK Patent Act 1977 Section 1(2) [5] such as restrictions to patentable subject matter, requirements for novelty and inventive step

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work