Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 87 (Pat) (01 February 2016)

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 87 (Pat) (01 February 2016)

The asserted claims of the 287 and 163 Patents were found invalid for insufficiency because the specification did not enable the skilled person to perform the invention across the full breadth of the claims without undue burden, particularly in relation to the size of insertions and deletions required and the technical limitations at the priority date. The patents were not infringed as the claims were invalid. Arguments on anticipation, inventive step, and added matter were addressed but insufficiency was determinative.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 87 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc; First Defendant: Kymab Limited; Second Defendant: Novo Nordisk A/S
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Claims 5 and 6 of the 287 Patent and claim 1 of the 163 Patent held invalid for insufficiency; infringement claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Sufficiency, Inventive Step, Added Matter, Cross Anticipation
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Infringement Patent Validity Sufficiency Inventive Step Added Matter Cross Anticipation

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc

Claimant

Kymab Limited

First Defendant

Novo Nordisk A/S

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Kymab infringed claims 5 and 6 of the 287 Patent and claim 1 of the 163 Patent
  2. 2 Whether the patents are invalid for insufficiency, lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, or added matter
  3. 3 Whether the patents are anticipated by prior art or cross-anticipated

Ratio Decidendi

The asserted claims of the 287 and 163 Patents were found invalid for insufficiency because the specification did not enable the skilled person to perform the invention across the full breadth of the claims without undue burden, particularly in relation to the size of insertions and deletions required and the technical limitations at the priority date. The patents were not infringed as the claims were invalid. Arguments on anticipation, inventive step, and added matter were addressed but insufficiency was determinative.

Court Disposition

Claims 5 and 6 of the 287 Patent and claim 1 of the 163 Patent held invalid for insufficiency; infringement claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Revocation of the asserted claims of the 287 and 163 Patents
  • Dismissal of infringement claims against Kymab and Novo Nordisk