tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1212903926792113873..comments2024-03-29T06:00:27.896+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Regeneron v Kymab - Part I: SufficiencyVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-66002936175209086942018-04-02T17:02:22.448+01:002018-04-02T17:02:22.448+01:00I can only but support the last sentence. If it is...I can only but support the last sentence. If it is not novel, it can be enabled. If it cannot be enabled it is moot to discuss whether it is novel. But you cannot have it both ways. <br /><br />There is one word which I have not heard here: plausibility. Was it plausible at the priority date that the cutting in small pieces and piecemeal replacement of genes was possible?<br /><br />If this was not plausible, post published public knowledge cannot overcome the lack of sufficiency. If yes, then the decision is OK. If not, the decision is not correct. <br /><br />After all a monopoly is only justified if there is a contribution to the known art at the effective date of a claim. This should be valid in any legal system and not only at the EPO. Attentive observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-65038006545140173302018-03-31T10:02:08.376+01:002018-03-31T10:02:08.376+01:00Thanks for a very clear and readable write-up. The...Thanks for a very clear and readable write-up. The last para is particularly tasty. At the civil law EPO, there is no discovery, no cross-examination, no inequitable conduct and no "Rules of Evidence". Cases are decided by a panel that deems itself competent to assess the probative value of what party experts argue, both in writing and orally.<br /><br />So no wonder that the EPO saw the Art 83 EPC issue differently.<br /><br />I wonder, can you, Rose Hughes, or a reader, give us a quick summary of the reasoning on Art 83 EPC by which insufficiency attacks were dismissed by the TBA at the EPO?<br /><br />Is this case then a good example of how three different systems of litigating a patent (USA, England, EPO) can result in three different outcomes? Is it a suitable case for exploring the question whether the USA is too hot, on the very important matter of inequitable conduct? Or is England too lax? MaxDreinoreply@blogger.com