Finasteride was a known treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia and Merck were granted a patent for this therapeutic application in 1978. Subsequently, Merck filed an application for the treatment of androgenic alopecia with a family of compounds including...
The case concerns questions referred to the EBA following refusal of European patent application No. 96903521.1 (Publication No. EP0770125, the “WARF application”) in the name of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, relating to “Primate ES cells”. Oral Proceedings...
The WARF decision is out: the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) has held that the WARF invention required, at the time of filing, destruction of an embryo. Whatever the claims covered, this inevitable embryo destruction meant the application had to be refused. The...
The European “WARF” Decision – G02/06 – changed examination practice at the European Patent Office in relation to inventions involving human ES cells. Rule 28 EPC 2000 provides that European patents shall not be granted in respect of...
To be patentable a claim must be new and comprise an inventive step. Novelty is a question of fact: are all of the features of the claim present in a relevant single disclosure dating prior to the priority date of the patent application? However, the assessment of...
Brüstle v. Greenpeace e.V. (C-34/10) concerns a patent held by Professor Oliver Brüstle, who is the director of the Institute of Reconstructive Neurobiology at the University of Bonn. His research includes treating neurological disease by transplanting neural stem...
![Omnipharm Limited v Merial [2011] EWHC 3393 (Pat)](https://www.schlich.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Omnipharm-Limited-v-Merial-2011-EWHC-3393-Pat.jpg)
Recent Comments