The appellant had had granted to it a patent for a new human protein, Neutrokine-a. It now appealed against revocation of the patent on the basis that as yet there was no possible industrial application within the Convention so as to allow patenting.
Held: The patentee’s appeal against revocation failed. Jacob LJ said: ‘However clever and inventive you may have been in discovering a gene sequence, you cannot have a patent for it or for the protein for which it encodes if you do not disclose how it can be used’.
Judges:
Jacob, Hallett LJJ, Lewison J
Citations:
[2010] RPC 14, (2010) 112 BMLR 161, [2010] EWCA Civ 33
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Eli Lilly and Company v Human Genome Sciences Inc PatC 31-Jul-2008
The claimant sought the revocation of the defendant’s European patent in respect of a nucleotide and amino acid sequence of a novel member of the TNF ligand superfamily which it called Neutrokine-a.
Held: The patent was invalid for lack of . .
See Also – Eli Lilly and Company v Human Genome Sciences, Inc PatC 17-Oct-2008
The parties discussed the costs order to be made after a challenge to a patent succeeded on some grounds but not on others. . .
Directions for Appeal – Eli Lilly and Co v Human Genome Sciences CA 23-Feb-2009
The court considered directions for a forthcoming appeal, and in particular as to its date, where there were parallel revocation proceedings before the European Court. . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Human Genome Sciences Inc v Eli Lilly and Company SC 2-Nov-2011
The court considered an appeal against the declaration of invalidity of a biomedical patent for a new human protein on the grounds that it was not susceptible of industrial application.
Held: The patentee’s appeal succeeded. The court had to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396632