2024-12-20 - CoA - Alexion v. Amgen - UPC_CoA_405/2024
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CoA_405/2024
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)
- Art:
- Appeal Decision
- Parteien:
- Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amgen
Kernaussage: 1.
2024-12-20 - CoA - Alexion
v.
Amgen - UPC_CoA_405/2024
1. A linguistic error, a spelling mistake or any other inaccuracy in a patent claim can only be corrected by way of interpretation of the patent claim if the existence of an error and the precise way to correct it are sufficiently certain to the average skilled person on the basis of the patent claim, taking into account the description and the drawings and using common general knowledge.
2. The patent claim must be interpreted from the perspective of the person skilled in the art. The applicant’s assertions during the grant proceedings, and in particular the TBA’s endorsement thereof, can be seen as an indication of the view of the person skilled in the art at the filing date.
The Court of Appeal rejected an appeal against the dismissal of an application for provisional measures due to doubts regarding the patent's validity. The Court confirmed the CFI's decision and explained the legal standard regarding claim interpretation, in particular with regard to alleged errors in a patent claim.
The same decision was issued in parallel proceedings against a different party.
Stichwörter
Relevance of the applicant’s assertions and the TBA’s endorsement thereof during grant proceedings for the interpretation of patent claims, Error in a patent claim, Appeal, Patent claim interpretation, Provisional measures
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCInsufficiency of Disclosure
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 83 EPC · Art. 138(1)(b) EPC
“CoA held that, construed to include the signal peptide, claim 2 is more likely than not insufficiently disclosed within Art. 83 EPC — Alexion itself concedes the complete SEQ ID NO: 4 antibody does not bind C5 [48].”