June 24, 2020
Authored and Edited by K. Victoria Barker, Ph.D.; Maeve O'Flynn
The UK Supreme Court has now issued its judgement in the long running Regeneron v Kymab transgenic mouse cases, finding the Regeneron patents invalid for lack of sufficiency.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc sued Kymab Ltd for infringement of their transgenic mouse patents (EP1360287 and EP2264163). The mice covered by the Regeneron patents included a combination of mouse and human DNA, meaning that they produced antibodies that can be used in the treatment of human illnesses without causing immunological sickness in a mouse. The Kymab mice (Kymice) have a similar genetic structure to the Regeneron mice. Kymab’s defence against their alleged infringement was that the Regeneron patents were invalid for lacking sufficiency.
In this context “sufficient” means that the patent discloses the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art. Sufficiency is an essential requirement for UK and EP patents and it is well established that a finding of lack of sufficiency may be justified in the case of excessive claim scope (see Biogen Inc v Medeva plc [1997] RPC 1, often referred to as “Biogen insufficiency”).
Regeneron’s patents contained enough information to enable the skilled person to combine a small amount of human DNA with mouse DNA, leading to a single transgenic mouse. The Court of Appeal felt that this was enough to enable to the skilled person to work the invention and that therefore the requirements of sufficiency were met. Crucially, the Court of Appeal relied on the limited information in the patents providing a “general principle” that could be more widely applied by the skilled person and that it would be unfair to restrict the scope of the Regeneron patents given their “contribution to the art”.
Kymab subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court have rejected the Court of Appeal’s “general principle” argument. Instead, the Supreme Court takes the view that the amount of human DNA to be incorporated is an important factor in determining the diversity of useful antibodies which the mice would produce. Mice containing more human DNA are arguably therapeutically most valuable and it was these mice that could not be made following the teaching in the Regeneron patents. In other words, the Regeneron patents did not include enough information to enable to skilled person to work the invention across its entire scope. The Supreme Court concluded that the Regeneron patents were therefore unduly broad and lacked sufficiency.
The judgement can be found here. For more information on this and any of the matters raised in this article, please contact Victoria or Maeve.
Copyright © 2020 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaim
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.