AI has been hailed as a potentially revolutionary tool for accelerating and enhancing the difficult and expensive process of drug discovery. Medicine perhaps represents the field in which AI has the most to offer humanity. However, the nascent field of AI-assisted drug design also highlights the need for IP strategy to be as forward-looking and…
Originally published on IPKat.
The EPO Board of Appeal decision in T 0687/22 confirms beyond doubt the relevance of G 2/21 to software inventions. The decision in T 0687/22 links the case law from G 1/19 and G 2/21 to highlight the importance of establishing a credible technical effect of software invention. The Patentee in the case made several attempts to formulate an objective technical problem solved…
IP strategy for cell therapy also has unique challenges. The patent at issue in T 1259/22, although relatively old (expiring August 2024 with SPCs), nonetheless highlights some of the key challenges for cell therapy IP strategy.
The decision in Juno v Kite is not a surprise in light of the recent CAFC case law on written description for antibodies, and represents yet another nail in the coffin of functional genus claiming for biomolecules in the US.
Cell therapy represents one of the most exciting fields of innovation, with the potential to provide long-term cures for previously incurable diseases. However, unlike traditional pharmaceuticals, these “living medicines” present unique IP challenges that can make or break a biotech’s future.
Conventional approaches to LoE fail to capture the complex reality of cell therapy products. IP strategy for cell therapy needs to be adapted to take account of these realities.
Originally posted on IPKat.
In Azurity v. Alkem the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the District of Delaware’s ruling that Alkem’s antibiotic formulation did not infringe patent claims owned by Azurity. The CAFC found that Azurity clearly and unmistakably disclaimed the presence of a key ingredient from the claimed formulation during prosecution. Given that Alkem’s formulation included…
Originally posted on IPKat.
Following the high profile hearing last month, we are now waiting for the written decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) in G 1/24. Readers can catch-up on the full background to the case here. There is also still plenty to discuss while we wait.
G 1/24 relates to the question of…
Originally posted on IPKat.
The recent decision T 1913/21 highlights a crucial differentiation between second non-medical use claims and process claims. The Board of Appeal found that, according to the established case law, claims in which the technical effect of the invention occurs only as part of a process for producing a product, must be regarded as…
Originally posted on IPKat.
The recent Board of Appeal decision in T 1865/22 considered the inventive step of a composition where the only distinguishing feature was a lower concentration of a component compared to the closest prior art. The prior art taught that higher concentrations of this component were advantageous. The Board of Appeal found that simply excluding…
Originally posted on IPKat.
The recent decision in Abbott v Sibio Technology (UPC_CoA_382/2024) offers valuable insights into the UPC’s approach to the interpretation of functional claim language and the ever-contentious topic of added matter. On both issues, the UPC broadly appears to have followed the EPO approach. However, the lack of any explicit indication from the Court of…
