Strict Sufficiency

AP
Arnold & Porter

Contributor

Arnold & Porter is a firm of more than 1,000 lawyers, providing sophisticated litigation and transactional capabilities, renowned regulatory experience and market-leading multidisciplinary practices in the life sciences and financial services industries. Our global reach, experience and deep knowledge allow us to work across geographic, cultural, technological and ideological borders.
Beatriz San Martin and Shishu Chen examine the recent Regeneron ruling in the UK Supreme Court, and what it means for reliance on patents for second medical uses
United States Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Beatriz San Martin and Shishu Chen examine the recent Regeneron ruling in the UK Supreme Court, and what it means for reliance on patents for second medical uses.

When can a patent claiming a range of products for a ground-breaking invention amounting to a principle of general application be sufficiently enabled? This was the central question that needed to be addressed by the UK Supreme Court in the Regeneron v Kymab case. The long-awaited answer came on 24 June 2020 when the Supreme Court held that sufficiency requires "substantially the whole of the range of products within the scope of the claim to be enabled to be made by means of the disclosure in the patent" and this is irrespective of whether the patent discloses a principle of general application.

To read the full article click here

Originally published 29 July, 2020

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More