The claimants sought damages for infringement of their patent. The defendants denied infringement, and sought a revocation of the patent.
Held: The patent concerned gene technology. Although an error had been made, the patent was valid, since the claim had been constructed with reasonable care and skill, and the error had no consequences for the patent as a whole. Amendment of the patent was allowed. Even so, it had not been infringed by the defendants.
Hale, Aldous, Latham LJJ
[2002] EWCA Civ 1096, [2002] RPC 31
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Chiron Corporation v Organon Teknika Ltd; Same v Murex Diagnostics (No 7) ChD 17-Feb-1994
The issue of loss in a prior patent challenge is res judicata in later proceedings despite the presence of experimental difficulties leading to ipossibly severe time limits. A patent applicant has no duty to inform the Patent Office of matters . .
See Also – Kirin Amgen Inc and Another v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd and others CA 27-Mar-2003
. .
Appeal from – Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd and others v Kirin-Amgen Inc and others PatC 21-Mar-2002
A claim was made on the one hand for a patent infringement, and on the other it was challenged. The patent related to recombinant erythropoietin.
Held: The claim 19 was invalid (for insufficiency) but that claim 26 was valid and infringed. . .
Cited by:
See Also – Kirin Amgen Inc and Another v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd and others CA 27-Mar-2003
. .
Appeal from – 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 . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.175231 br>