Understanding how patent claims are interpreted is crucial, and a recent EPO decision, G 1/24, provides new guidance: always consult the patent’s full description and drawings, not just the claims themselves.
In a world in which incalculable amounts of sophisticated sequence data is freely available, are the clunky processes necessary to input patent sequence data really fit-for-purpose?
When drafting a patent, seemingly innocuous “boilerplate” definitions in the description can drastically narrow your claims, as demonstrated by the Alnylam v Moderna case in the US, highlighting the critical need for precise language to protect your invention.
Discover the critical difference between patentability and freedom to operate in biotech, and why true innovation is your best strategy for navigating the complex intellectual property landscape.
Beware! The recent Samsung v Alexion UK High Court decision reveals that even a single-letter error in patent sequence data, coupled with vague descriptive language, can invalidate your claims and lead to costly legal battles.
Navigating the complex CRISPR patent landscape remains a challenge. The Federal Circuit’s decision in Regents v. Broad Institute is another in the ongoing battle between the inventors of CRISPR.
Navigating European pharma and biotech patent litigation is more complex than ever, with ongoing debates on plausibility, UPC intricacies, claim interpretation, and divergent strategies for antibody inventions.
