So When Is A Patent Claim Too Broad?

In Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Genentech Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 93 the Court of Appeal dismissed the claimants' appeal, rejecting all their arguments in respect of construction, infringement, novelty, inventiveness, and sufficiency. The court preferred the first instance finding that the patent was valid and infringed. The case therefore confirms that a broad claim encompassing a large number of unexemplified embodiments can be valid and enforceable.

Background

Genentech's patent (EP 1238986) described therapeutic agents for the treatment of a range of diseases by preventing excessive blood vessel growth (angiogenesis or neovascularisation). In particular, it was concerned with Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor antagonist antibodies (anti-VEGF) and the patent claims were limited to treatment of non-neoplastic diseases.

On the other hand, the claimants were planning to launch a product for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration of the eye (ARMD), called VEGF Trap Eye (VTE) - now known by its brand name "Eylea". Regeneron developed the product, and Bayer was the licensee.

Decision - Court of First Instance

The Claimants decided to apply to revoke the patent (on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of...