tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post6933096236117907276..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Court of Appeal, following EPO, reverses Carr J in Regeneron v Kymab disputeVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-27184600171982817642018-03-29T11:19:27.381+01:002018-03-29T11:19:27.381+01:00Chemical and biotech practice invented the concept...Chemical and biotech practice invented the concept of sufficiency across the breadth of a claim, and it is only correct that this concept evolves as it needs to. However there also has to be natural justice. Carr essentially couldn't stomach that infringement could be found where the infringing embodiment could not have been made at the relevant date for validity. According to the court of appeal's reasoning presumably non-functional (i.e. not solving the problem) embodiments could also infringe. Surely that is wrong it is for the UK courts to fix this anomaly with a new test for infringement where certain embodiments covered by the literal language of the claim cannot be covered for infringement purposes? Given how keen the UK courts have been over doctrine of equivalents, perhaps they now need to consider decreasing infringement scope for the sake of 'fairness'Pamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-3592858730556214192018-03-28T19:17:35.202+01:002018-03-28T19:17:35.202+01:00So that means in some circumstances it is OK to co...So that means in some circumstances it is OK to cover embodiments which could not have been made at the filing date, which is not too shocking. However I wonder whether this is the start of the end for use of 'squeeze' arguments in the UK, which the EPO seldom uses. Perhaps it is time now for us to align with the EPO in treating each test for validity and infringement independently and not worrying too much about the minor contradictions that emerge. Contradictorynoreply@blogger.com