The EPO Technical Board of Appeal observed that it was: ‘the general legal principle that the extent of the patent monopoly, as defined by the claims should correspond to the technical contribution to the article in order for it to be supported, or justified. . . This means that the definitions in the claims should essentially correspond to the scope of the invention as disclosed in the description. . . Although the requirements of articles 83 and 84 are directed to different parts of the patent application, since article 83 relates to the disclosure of the invention, whilst article 84 deals with the definition of the invention by the claims, the underlying purpose of the requirement of support by the description, insofar as its substantive aspect is concerned, and of the requirement of sufficient disclosure is the same, namely to ensure that the patent monopoly should be justified by the actual technical contribution to the art.’
[1994] OJ EPO 653, T 409/91
European
Cited by:
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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 October 2021; Ref: scu.668410
