A patent was granted for a product, produced by the bacterium streptomyces hygroscopicus, called rapamycin, which was useful to suppress transplant rejection. Because rapamycin was a known product at the priority date, it could not be patented: neither could its use as a treatment, because that would offend section 4(2) of the Patents Act 1977. The claim was for a specific type. Claims for infringement and cross claims for invalidity were heard.
Held: The patent had been infringed and the allegation of insufficiency failed. The court refused to make a declaration of non-infringement as sought.
Judges:
Laddie J
Citations:
[2000] RPC 547
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – American Home Products Corporation, Professor Roy Calne v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited, Novartis Pharma AG CA 27-Jul-2000
The invention was a second medical use for a known drug rapamycin, which was found to have an immuno-suppressive effect. The court asked whether a claim to rapamycin should be construed to include derivatives.
Held: A person skilled in the art . .
Cited – Kirin-Amgen Inc and others v Hoechst Marion Roussel Limited and others etc HL 21-Oct-2004
The claims arose in connection with the validity and alleged infringement of a European Patent on erythropoietin (‘EPO’).
Held: ‘Construction is objective in the sense that it is concerned with what a reasonable person to whom the utterance . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.218737
