Current Law Journal Content
Washington & Lee Law School
Current Law Journal Content
an index to legal periodicals
Bio-Science Law Review
Volume 9, Issue 5, 2006/2007
SPECIFIC, SUBSTANTIAL AND CREDIBLE? A NEW TEST FOR GENE PATENTS
ROBERT FITT AND EDWARD NODDER
The validity of gene patents has been a controversial issue for many years. This issue has recently been considered in depth for the first time by the UK High Court in Eli Lilly and Company v. Human Genome Sciences, Inc. This article reviews the judgment and summarises the extensive review of the relevant EPO case law and the Approach taken by the USPTO and the US courts, Of particular interest to all companies and professionals that file and prosecute biotech patents, will be the list of nine principles set out in the judgment which need to be considered when assessing the validity of biotechnology inventions.
HOUSE OF LORDS PATCHES THE INTERFACE BETWEEN OBVIOUSNESS AND INSUFFICIENCY
ANNA-LOUISE GLANCY AND GARTH MORGAN
In an opinion released on 9 July 2008 the House of Lords brought more certainty to the test applied to patents to determine inventive step in the UK. This is good news for litigants who feared that the test for obviousness in the UK was in some way becoming linked to the extent of the technical disclosure of the patent and, as a result, becoming fraught with uncertainty.
EXTENSION GRANTED: GILEAD OBTAINS ITS SPC FOR COMBINATION ANTIRETROVIRALS
On appeal, the English High Court reversed the Hearing Officer's decision in Re Gilead Sciences Inc and allowed the SPC. Although the court did not take the opportunity of clarifying the appropriate test in these cases, the decision will nevertheless be welcomed by pharmaceutical patentees. The restrictive interpretation of the law previously applied by the lower tribunal made it seemingly very difficult for patentees to obtain SPC extension to basic subject-of-matter patents where the commercially successful product turned out to be a combination product, even where a combination may have been claimed in the patent.
SHOULD NUCLEAR TRANSFER (SO CALLED 'THERAPEUTIC CLONING') PATENTS BE ALLOWED UNDER AUSTRALIAN LAW?
Should patents be allowed with respect to nuclear transfer, so-called 'therapeutic cloning'? This is a loaded question which is even more complicated than it may appear. This article focuses on therapeutic cloning which is also sometimes referred to as somatic cell nuclear transfer ('SCNT'), but SCNT and 'therapeutic cloning' are not necessarily the same technology. This article reviews the situation under Australian law, but other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and the United States are examined for comparative and historical purposes.
UNITED KINGDOM - Access to Information - Sec of State for the Home Office v British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and another - Contracts - Oxonica Energy Limited v Neuetec - Patents - Dr Reddy's Laboratories v Eli Lilly - Patents - Actavis v Merck
A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE AS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH EXPERIMENTAL USE, AND CERTAIN OTHER DEFENCES TO PATENT INFRINGEMENT, APPLY TO DIFFERING TYPES OF RESEARCH