- Cited — Davis v Lloyds Bank Plc (Rev 1) 2021-04-16
“…[2004] UKHL 46, [2005] RPC 9 at [64]:…”
- Cited — Anan Kasei Co Ltd & Anor v Neo Chemicals And Oxides Ltd & Anor 2019-10-09
“…h Neo rely for this attack on the patent is illustrated by the decision of the House of Lords in Kirin Amgen and others v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd and others [2004] UKHL 46 (“Kirin Amgen”). In that case it was alleged that claim 19 of the patent was insufficient because it defined the invention, recombinant erythropoietin or rEPO,…”
- Cited — Anan Kasei Co Ltd & Anor v Neo Chemicals And Oxides Ltd & Anor 2019-10-09
“…the question whether someone has crossed the boundary “yes” or “no”. That, I think, is what Lord Hoffmann meant in Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2004] UKHL 46, [2005] RPC 9 at [126] by a “fuzzy boundary” (a phrase which is now part of the jargon of patent lawyers). The boundary may be fuzzy, but it is still a boundar…”
- Cited — Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Kymab Ltd & Anor 2018-03-28
“…oncerned the patent the subject of the Board’s own earlier decision T 412/93 and the decision of the House of Lords in Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel [2004] UKHL 46, [2005] RPC 9, to which we will come. For present purposes, we need refer only to the discussion by the Board of the balance to be drawn between the need for f…”
- Cited — Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Kymab Ltd & Anor 2018-03-28
“…Lord Hoffmann provided further guidance in Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel [2004] UKHL 46, [2005] RPC 9. A team from Amgen was the first to clone and sequence the gene for erythropoetin (“EPO”). Once that sequence had been discovered it was possible…”
- Cited — Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Kymab Ltd & Anor 2018-03-28
“…Hoffmann had in mind in Kirin-Amgen [2004] UKHL 46,…”