A product claim was made for a patent for a class of chemical compounds alleged to be useful as herbicides. There was nothing in the description to justify the assertion that all the compounds in the class would have herbicidal properties. The Board of Appeal decided that the claims were not insufficient (the skilled man would have been able to make all the compounds claimed) but failed for lack of an inventive step because there was nothing inventive in simply making the compounds. The invention, if any, would lie in the discovery that they were herbicides.
‘A technical effect which justifies the selection of the claimed compounds must be one which can be fairly assumed to be produced by substantially all the selected compounds.’ The Board acknowledged that a patentee does not have to have tested every compound to see whether it has the claimed effect: ‘reasonable predictions of relations between chemical structure and biological activity are in principle possible, but that there is a limit beyond which no such prediction can be validly made.’
Otherwise AGREVO/Triazole sulphonamides
T-0939/92, [1996] EPOR 171
European
Cited by:
Cited – Conor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc and others HL 9-Jul-2008
The respondents had applied for and obtained an order to revoke the appellant’s patent of a stent for obvousness. Though the parties had settled, the public law element required the intervention of the Comptroller General. The House was asked about . .
Cited – Warner-Lambert Company Llc v Generics (UK) Ltd (T/A Mylan) and Another SC 14-Nov-2018
These proceedings raise, for the first time in the courts of the United Kingdom, the question how the concepts of sufficiency and infringement are to be applied to a patent relating to a specified medical use of a known pharmaceutical compound. Four . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 October 2021; Ref: scu.270830 br>