tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5626468057018138743..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: BREAKING: Eli Lilly success as UK Supreme Court finds Actavis products directly and indirectly infringe pemetrexed patentVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-58318981178039135472017-07-12T11:24:20.197+01:002017-07-12T11:24:20.197+01:00So, Lord Neuberger is "inclined to think that...So, Lord Neuberger is "inclined to think that the examiner was wrong" in taking the view that the patent should be limited to pemetrexed disodium. However, the examiner does not specify the claims an applicant must file, either during drafting or prosecution. This was solely in the hands of the applicant. The examiner took the view that the claim to 'pemetrexed' was added matter, and rightly so. It is unfortunate that our Supreme court act in total disregard of established case law of the EPO. If the UK courts are so opposed to the strict law of added matter followed by the EPO, maybe they should not be so quick to follow the EPO's position in respect of novelty.<br /><br />Whether, and to what extent, the courts should protect a patentee from its own incompetent drafting is a separate point as clearly equivalence doctrines exist. However, the present case leads to significant uncertainty in an area where claims can be defined in absolute clarity down to the atomic level. 'Sodium' means one thing only, whereas 'spring' is a functional definition open to interpretation. Even 'vertical' has a degree of error.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com