Search for: "AMGEN V HOECHST MARION ROUSSEL"
Results 21 - 40
of 48
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Oct 2008, 5:52 am
On this basis there was no infringement.* The prior art cited by ACS did not emcompass the invention described in Ancon's patent, so the challenge to its validity failed.The IPKat notes the judge's reliance on, among other decisions, that of the House of Lords in Kirin-Amgen Inc. v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd, in which Lord Hoffmann rewrote, clarified or invented the British law on claim construction, depending on how you read the law that came… [read post]
9 Jul 2007, 9:14 am
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 457 F.3d 1293, 1313 (Fed. [read post]
6 Oct 2008, 7:23 am
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1355-56 (Fed. [read post]
30 Jul 2015, 9:50 am
That is what today's decision addresses.Appeal to the Supreme CourtThe Court of Appeal has refused leave for Smith & Nephew to appeal to the Supreme Court, because it considered that there is no significant point of general public importance at stake, since it has done no more than apply the established principles of claim construction from Kirin Amgen (Kirin Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2004] UKHL 46, [2005] RPC 9) to… [read post]
8 Mar 2023, 2:51 pm
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1330 (Fed. [read post]
22 Oct 2009, 3:29 am
This judgment is a lot shorter than that of the first instance decision, weighing in at a mere 133 paragraphs.The IPKat hasn't yet had time to digest for the benefit of legal beagles, but here are a couple of snippets for legal whippets:* After summarising Kirin-Amgen v Hoechst Marion Roussel [see earlier IPKat post here] and saying that one might suppose there was no more to say on the subject of claim construction after that ruling, the Court said:… [read post]
9 Jun 2018, 7:01 pm
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313,1354 (Fed. [read post]
6 Apr 2017, 1:35 pm
See Medicines Co. v. [read post]
20 Aug 2010, 5:46 pm
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1357 (Fed. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 1:34 pm
Later, in Kirin-Amgen v Hoechst Marion Roussel [2005] RPC 9 Lord Hoffmann confirmed that purposive construction as in Catnic and Improver gave “effect to the requirements of the Protocol” and was “the bedrock of patent construction, universally applicable”, whereas the Protocol or Improver questions were simply “guidelines for applying that principle to equivalents ... , more useful in some cases than in others”.Having… [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 7:59 am
Later, in Kirin-Amgen v Hoechst Marion Roussel [2005] RPC 9 Lord Hoffmann confirmed that purposive construction as in Catnic and Improver gave “effect to the requirements of the Protocol” and was “the bedrock of patent construction, universally applicable”, whereas the Protocol or Improver questions were simply “guidelines for applying that principle to equivalents ... , more useful in some cases than in others”.Having… [read post]
28 Jul 2011, 3:00 am
Distinct issues of construction arose in respect of claims 1 and 3 of the patent:Claim 1:A wound dressing comprising a blend of discrete modified cellulose gel forming fibres with at least one other type of discrete gel forming fibres.Claim 3:A wound dressing as claimed in any preceding claim wherein the dressing comprises a wound contacting surface consisting of a blend of discrete modified cellulose fibres with at least one other type of discrete gel forming fibres.Setting out the law, the Judge… [read post]
13 Jul 2017, 8:47 am
The judgment comes as a surprise, as the previously established UK case law had over time firmly done away with the idea of ‘pith and marrow’ infringement, culminating in the seminal House of Lords judgment in Kirin-Amgen v Hoechst Marion Roussel [2004] UKHL 46. [read post]
13 Jul 2017, 8:47 am
The judgment comes as a surprise, as the previously established UK case law had over time firmly done away with the idea of ‘pith and marrow’ infringement, culminating in the seminal House of Lords judgment in Kirin-Amgen v Hoechst Marion Roussel [2004] UKHL 46. [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 1:39 pm
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314F.3d 1313, 1354 (Fed. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 1:44 pm
Sighted this morning, breaking the surface just off the Strand, the judgment of Mr Justice Arnold in MedImmune v Novartis [2011] EWHC 1669 (Pat) certainly fits the legend.In characteristic style, the judgment is as comprehensive as one would wish. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 4:11 pm
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1326 (Fed. [read post]
2 May 2011, 3:14 pm
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1339 (Fed. [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 12:37 am
As this court stated in Amgen Inc. v. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 4:52 am
" "The second is that it is necessary to distinguish between claims that are difficult to construe or that have a "fuzzy boundary" (in the words of Lord Hoffmann in Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2004] UKHL 46, [2005] RPC 9 at [126]) on the one hand from claims that are truly ambiguous on the other. [read post]
