Eli Lilly & Company v Human Genome Sciences Inc [2010] EWCA Civ 33 (09 February 2010)

Eli Lilly & Company v Human Genome Sciences Inc [2010] EWCA Civ 33 (09 February 2010)

The patent failed to disclose a sufficiently specific and plausible industrial application for Neutrokine-a as required by Article 57 EPC and the Biotech Directive. The disclosure was too general and speculative, lacking a concrete function or use. The patent was therefore invalid for lack of industrial applicability.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 33
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Eli Lilly and Company; Appellant/defendant: Human Genome Sciences Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Patent Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Patents Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; patent held invalid for lack of industrial applicability.
Legal Topics
Industrial Applicability of Patents, Biotechnology Patents, Interpretation of Article 57 EPC, Patent Validity, Disclosure Requirements
Intellectual Property Law Patent Law Industrial Applicability of Patents Biotechnology Patents Interpretation of Article 57 EPC Patent Validity Disclosure Requirements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eli Lilly and Company

Respondent/claimant

Human Genome Sciences Inc

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Patents Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HGS's patent for Neutrokine-a and related claims is susceptible of industrial application under Article 57 EPC
  2. 2 Whether the patent is insufficiently disclosed
  3. 3 Whether the patent is obvious due to lack of technical contribution

Ratio Decidendi

The patent failed to disclose a sufficiently specific and plausible industrial application for Neutrokine-a as required by Article 57 EPC and the Biotech Directive. The disclosure was too general and speculative, lacking a concrete function or use. The patent was therefore invalid for lack of industrial applicability.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; patent held invalid for lack of industrial applicability.

Orders

  • Patent EP (UK) 0,939,804 remains revoked; no need to consider further amendments or other grounds.