Chemical Products and Proportionate Patents Before and After Generics v Lundbeck

  title={Chemical Products and Proportionate Patents Before and After Generics v Lundbeck},
  author={J. Pila},
  journal={King's Law Journal},
  pages={489 - 526}
  • J. Pila
  • Published 2009
  • Engineering
  • King's Law Journal
In Generics Ltd v Lundbeck A/S (2009) UKHL 12, the House of Lords affirmed the validity of a patent for a chemical product - an isolated stereoisomer - supported by a method of producing the product, but protecting the chemical product as such independent of the method by which it was made. In so doing, it appears to have resolved a longstanding tension between granting patents for chemical products and requiring that the scope of monopoly rights equiperate with the disclosure in the… Expand
3 Citations


Article 27.1 requires 'discrimination as to … the field of technology' (emphasis added)
  • 2008
Symbian v Comptroller General of Patents
  • EWCA Civ
  • 2008
See Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings
  • EWCA Civ
  • 2006
27] per Mr Prescott QC (supporting a teleological interpretation of
  • recognition of their basis in an international treaty)
  • 2005
Mr Prescott QC, supporting a conception of subject matter 'under the description "invention
  • 2005
(noting the importance of ensuring public access to essential drugs, and thus of requiring that monopoly patents in the pharmaceutical field are
    Article 52(1) EPC has been brought into line with Article 27(1), first sentence, of the TRIPs Agreement with a view to … making it plain that patent protection is available to technical