tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post231873650040967384..comments2024-03-29T13:59:42.629+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Of Catnic, clamps and catheters: the story of an ordinary wordVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-5303581314848171012010-06-23T13:42:37.732+01:002010-06-23T13:42:37.732+01:00I suppose Lord Hoffmann’s decision in Kirin-Amgen ...I suppose Lord Hoffmann’s decision in Kirin-Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd. is known for rejecting the Improver questions, but it seems to me that it also effectively repudiated Catnic. The patentee argued that the term “host cell” in the claim meant a cell hosting any of the DNA sequences specified in the claim itself. At trial Neuberger J. acknowledged that this interpretation had “linguistic force. . . attraction and logic,” but he held that this was not the correct “literal” (his word) construction, based on a far more extreme example of meticulous verbal analysis than was engaged in by the Court of Appeal in Catnic. Certainly there was no consideration of the purpose of the term “host cell” contra Lord Diplock’s consideration of the weight-bearing function of the vertical member in Catnic. Neuberger J. understood that a literal approach is not correct, so he then undertook a purposive analysis by applying the Improver questions and concluded that the patentee’s construction was correct after all. It may be that Neuberger J. was wrong to separate literal and purposive analysis so sharply, but Lord Hoffmann did not integrate the two – he simply rejected the Improver analysis and adopted Neuberger J.’s literal analysis.Normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17573687140337856397noreply@blogger.com