- Cited — Darty Holdings SAS v Geoffrey Carton-Kelly 2023-10-09
“…ach of an appeal court has changed markedly since the 1950s; more especially since the introduction of the CPR. That process began with Biogen Inc v Medeva plc [1997] RPC 1, 45 (another case of obviousness) in which Lord Hoffmann qualified the effect of the Benmax case which he said was really about an evaluation of facts. It cont…”
- Cited — Sandoz Limited v Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company 2023-05-04
“…Lord Sumption proceeded to review Johns Hopkins (citing [12]) and BMS/Dasatinib (citing [4.9]) in [24], Biogen Inc Medeva plc [1997] RPC 1 in [25], the case law of the Boards of Appeal concerning the interpretation of claims to new uses of old products in [26], Re Prendergast’s Application [2000] …”
- Cited — Arron Banks v Carole Cadwalladr 2023-02-28
“…nd-guess the trial judge on questions of fact (Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5, [2014] ETMR 26 at [114] (Lewison LJ) and Biogen Inc v Madeva Plc [1997] RPC 1 at [45] (Lord Hoffmann)). I am very mindful of the general principle of appellate restraint and the sound reasons that underlie it. Mr Millar has not, however,…”
- Cited — LA Micro Group (UK) Ltd & Anor v LA Micro Group Inc & Ors. 2023-02-28
“…ould have reached: Volpi v Volpi at [2]. The need for appellate caution is based on much more solid grounds than professional courtesy: Biogen Inc v Medeva plc [1997] RPC 1 at 45 per Lord Hoffmann. And it is trite law that reasons for judgment could always be better expressed, and that judgments should be read on the assumption th…”
- Cited — Illumina Cambridge Limited v Latvia MGI Tech Sia 2021-12-17
“…ame in the context of priority as in the context of sufficiency of disclosure: see Asahi Kasei Kogyo KK’s Application[1991] RPC 486 and Biogen Inc v Medeva plc [1997] RPC 1 at 46-49.…”
- Cited — Sastry & Anor v General Medical Council 2021-04-30
“…sion, a mixture of fact and law, has been described as ‘a kind of jury question’ about which reasonable people may reasonably disagree: Biogen Inc v Medeva plc [1997] RPC 1, 45; Pharmacia Corp v Merck & Co Inc [2002] RPC 41, para 153; Todd v Adams and Chope (trading as Trelawney Fishing Co) (The Maragetha Maria) [2002] 2 All ER (C…”
- Cited — Sastry & Anor v General Medical Council 2021-04-30
“… that is to say it was an evaluative decision which fell outside the bounds of what the adjudicative body could properly and reasonably decide: the Biogen case [1997] RPC 1, para 45; Todd v Adams and Chope [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 97, para 129; Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd (trading as Washington DC) [2000] 1…”
- Cited — Sastry & Anor v General Medical Council 2021-04-30
“…sion, a mixture of fact and law, has been described as 'a kind of jury question' about which reasonable people may reasonably disagree: Biogen Inc v Medeva Plc [1997] RPC 1, 45; Pharmacia Corp v Merck & Co Inc [2002] RPC 41, [153]; Todd v Adams (t/a Trelawney Fishing Co) (The Maragetha Maria) [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep 293, [129]; Datec…”
- Applied — H-N And Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) (Rev 2) 2021-03-30
“…of primary fact. But it goes further than that. It applies also to the judge's evaluation of those facts. If I may quote what I said in Biogen Inc v Medeva Ltd [1997] RPC 1:…”
- Cited — Lowe v The Secretary of State for the Home Department 2021-01-25
“…self succinctly on them. This is what Lord Hoffmann said on the point in the well-known passage of his speech in the House of Lords in Biogen Inc. v Medeva plc [1997] RPC 1 at 45:…”
- Cited — Al-Najar & Ors v The Cumberland Hotel (London) Ltd 2020-12-18
“…ssments, on the facts of the case, of whether the admitted legal duty had been broken, which is a different thing: see the reference to Biogen Inc v Medeva plc [1997] RPC 1 at 45 below.…”
- Cited — Haley v Haley 2020-10-23
“…Biogen Inc v Medeva plc [1997] RPC 1…”
- Cited — E Mishan & Sons, Inc v Hozelock Ltd & Ors 2020-07-08
“…ple but is simply a matter of degree, an appellate court should be very cautious in differing from the judge's evaluation. per Lord Hoffmann in Biogen v Medeva [1997] RPC 1 at p.45.”…”
- Explained — Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Asustek Computer Incorporation & Ors 2019-12-17
“…ly directed himself as to the law, his evaluation of obviousness is entitled to great respect by an appellate court: see (amongst other places) Biogen v Medeva [1997] RPC 1 per Lord Hoffmann at 45 lines 20-45. As Lord Hoffmann explains, an appellate court should be “very cautious” before interfering where the application of the le…”
- Cited — Anan Kasei Co Ltd & Anor v Neo Chemicals And Oxides Ltd & Anor 2019-10-09
“… of the claim. Thus, there is no general rule that one method of making a product falling within a product claim will always be enough: Biogen Inc v Medeva plc [1997] RPC 1 (“Biogen”) at pages 47-49 (per Lord Hoffmann).…”
- Applied — Anan Kasei Co Ltd & Anor v Neo Chemicals And Oxides Ltd & Anor 2019-10-09
“…“In my opinion, therefore, in agreement with the Court of Appeal, the opinion of Lord Hoffmann in Biogen [1997] RPC 1, though a tour de force as Lord Walker says, is of no assistance to the appellants in this case. It applied in the light of the very unusual nature of the clai…”
- Doubted — Prescott v Potamianos & Anor 2019-06-06
“…found by a trial judge, there can be no doubt that one must also bear in mind the well-known passage in the speech of Lord Hoffmann in Biogen Inc. v Medeva plc [1997] RPC 1, 45 where he said:…”
- Cited — London Borough of Lambeth v Agoreyo 2019-03-05
“…That approach is similar to the approach recommended by Lord Hoffmann in a patent case, Biogen Inc. v Medeva plc [1997] RPC 1, at 45:…”
- Cited — Bawa-Garba v The General Medical Council & Ors 2018-08-13
“…sion, a mixture of fact and law, has been described as “a kind of jury question” about which reasonable people may reasonably disagree: Biogen Inc v Medeva Plc [1997] RPC 1 at 45; Pharmacia Corp v Merck & Co Inc [2001] EWCA Civ 1610, [2002] RPC 41 at [153]; Todd v Adams (t/a Trelawney Fishing Co) (The Maragetha Maria) [2002] EWCA …”
- Cited — Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Kymab Ltd & Anor 2018-03-28
“…That brings us to the leading authorities in this jurisdiction. Here we must start with the decision of the House of Lords in Biogen v Medeva [1997] RPC 1. It is helpful to have the relevant facts in mind. It was known at the priority date that the only available source of DNA for the hepatitis B virus (HBV) was …”
- Cited — Constandas v Lysandrou & Ors 2018-03-27
“…ess the trial judge’s view on credibility when she has had the opportunity to see the witnesses give evidence. As Lord Hoffmann said in Biogen Inc v Medeva Ltd [1997] RPC 1, 45 the judge's findings of primary fact, particularly if founded upon an assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are virtually unassailable. Even as regar…”