Regeneron Pharmacueticals Inc v Genentech Inc

Regeneron Pharmacueticals Inc v Genentech Inc

Kim 1992 did not anticipate the patent because it did not disclose or enable the claimed therapeutic use of VEGF antagonists for non-neoplastic diseases; it merely suggested potential. The invention was not obvious because the skilled person would not have had a fair expectation of success in using anti-VEGF therapy for the claimed diseases based on Kim 1992 and the common general knowledge. The patent was sufficiently enabled for the claimed scope, as the evidence supported a reasonable prediction that anti-VEGF therapy would work for non-neoplastic diseases characterized by excessive angiogenesis. VTE falls within the scope of the claims as an isolated VEGF receptor variant. The patent...

Parties
Claimant: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc; Claimant: Bayer Pharma AG; Defendant: Genentech Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Non Infringement Claim / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Patent upheld and found infringed
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Novelty, Inventive Step (obviousness), Sufficiency, Infringement, Therapeutic Use Claims
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Novelty Inventive Step (obviousness) Sufficiency Infringement Therapeutic Use Claims

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc

Claimant

Bayer Pharma AG

Claimant

Genentech Inc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Non Infringement Claim / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether European Patent (UK) No 1 238 986 is invalid for lack of novelty, inventive step, or insufficiency
  2. 2 Whether the patent is infringed by VEGF Trap Eye (VTE)

Ratio Decidendi

Kim 1992 did not anticipate the patent because it did not disclose or enable the claimed therapeutic use of VEGF antagonists for non-neoplastic diseases; it merely suggested potential. The invention was not obvious because the skilled person would not have had a fair expectation of success in using anti-VEGF therapy for the claimed diseases based on Kim 1992 and the common general knowledge. The patent was sufficiently enabled for the claimed scope, as the evidence supported a reasonable prediction that anti-VEGF therapy would work for non-neoplastic diseases characterized by excessive angiogenesis. VTE falls within the scope of the claims as an isolated VEGF receptor variant. The patent...

Court Disposition

Patent upheld and found infringed

Orders

  • Declaration that European Patent (UK) No 1 238 986 is valid
  • Declaration that VEGF Trap Eye infringes the patent