UK: UK Supreme Court Lowers The Threshold For Biologics Patents

Last Updated: 24 November 2011
Article by Jonathan Radcliffe

Keywords: UK Supreme Court, threshold, biologics patents, EPC

Summary and implications

The UK Supreme Court has handed down an important judgment that establishes when patents for biological materials will satisfy the test of industrial applicability1.

This judgment will potentially have a strategically significant effect on the position across Europe and in member states of the European Patent Convention ("the EPC").

  • This decision is of considerable importance to the research-based biotechnology industry. If a new potentially biologically active protein is discovered a patent can legitimately be applied for it at an early stage of the R&D program. It need not be delayed until the industrial applicability of the protein can be fully demonstrated.
  • One of the key new principles is that where the protein is said to be a family or superfamily member, if the disclosure is important to the pharmaceutical industry, the disclosure of the sequences of the protein and its gene may be sufficient, even though its role has not yet been clearly defined.
  • As a matter of public policy there is a fine balance between the competing interests of allowing a patentee to have a monopoly over a particular biological molecule too early – which may shut out any competition - and setting the standard for patentability too high (which may negate the incentives of the patent protection system and have a chilling effect on investment in bioscience and innovation).
  • The Supreme Court has reiterated that, as far as " possible, national patent law in the UK (and across EPC member states) should be interpreted in light of the relevant jurisprudence of the European Patent Office.

The key issue in this case

Article 52(1) EPC provides that an invention must be "susceptible of industrial application" if a European patent is to be obtained for it. Article 57 states that an invention is susceptible of industrial application if it can be made or used in any kind of industry. The primary issue in this case is the way in which this requirement of industrial applicability extends to a patent for biological material.

The Supreme Court and the correct test for industrial applicability for biological material

There is very little UK authority on industrial applicability in the context of biological material. The applicable principles are all to be derived from the EPO jurisprudence. In HGS v. Eli Lilly the Supreme Court therefore extensively reviewed and summarised the corpus of relevant EPO case law on industrial applicability in relation to biological material. Given the importance of consistency of interpretative approach between national courts and the EPO - the so-called "dialogue" between a national court and the EPO and between national courts themselves – this careful and detailed analysis will be of central importance across Europe for the foreseeable future.

The Supreme Court held that the "essence" of the EPO jurisprudence on industrial applicability in relation to biological material is as follows.

The general principles are:

(i) The patent must disclose "a practical application" and "some profitable use" for the claimed substance, so that the ensuing monopoly "can be expected [to lead to] some ... commercial benefit"2

(ii) A "concrete benefit", namely the invention's "use ... in industrial practice" must be "derivable directly from the description", coupled with common general knowledge.3

(iii) A merely "speculative" use will not suffice, so "a vague and speculative indication of possible objectives that might or might not be achievable" will not do.4

(iv) The patent and common general knowledge must enable the skilled person "to reproduce" or "exploit" the claimed invention without "undue burden", or having to carry out "a research programme".5

Where a patent discloses a new protein and its encoding gene:

(v) The patent, when taken with common general knowledge, must demonstrate "a real as opposed to a purely theoretical possibility of exploitation".6

(vi) Merely identifying the structure of a protein, without attributing to it a "clear role", or "suggest[ing]" any "practical use" for it, or suggesting "a vague and speculative indication of possible objectives that might be achieved", is not enough.7

(vii) The absence of any experimental or wet lab evidence of activity of the claimed protein is not fatal.8

(viii) A "plausible" or "reasonably credible" claimed use, or an "educated guess", can suffice.9

(ix) Such plausibility can be assisted by being confirmed by "later evidence", although later evidence on its own will not do.10

(x) The requirements of a plausible and specific possibility of exploitation can be at the biochemical, the cellular or the biological level.11

Where the protein is said to be a family or superfamily member:

(xi) If all known members have a "role in the proliferation, differentiation and/or activation of immune cells" or "function in controlling physiology, development and differentiation of mammalian cells", assigning a similar role to the protein may suffice.12

(xii) So "the problem to be solved" in such a case can be "isolating a further member of the [family]".13

(xiii) If the disclosure is "important to the pharmaceutical industry", the disclosure of the sequences of the protein and its gene may suffice, even though its role has not "been clearly defined".14

(xiv) The position may be different if there is evidence, either in the patent or elsewhere, which calls the claimed role or membership of the family into question.15

(xv) The position may also be different if the known members have different activities, although they need not always be "precisely interchangeable in terms of their biological action", and it may be acceptable if "most" of them have a common role.16

The Supreme Court's conclusions

The Supreme Court held that the disclosure and existence of Neutrokine-(and its gene sequence) and its membership of the Tumour Necrosing Factor ligand superfamily, coupled with the common general knowledge, was enough to satisfy the Article 57 test of industrial applicability. It therefore overturned the decisions of the Patents Court and the Court of Appeal, and restored the patent.

It is normally almost unheard of for the UK Supreme Court – or any appellate court for that matter – to disagree with the concurrent findings of specialist judges. But here the case did not involve a re-evaluation of the evidence, but rather of the correct application of the relevant legal principles.

In doing so the Supreme Court strongly criticised Kitchin J's analysis as diverting attention away from points which were likely to lead to a balanced decision, and criticised Jacob LJ as setting a more exacting standard for susceptibility to industrial application than that used by the EPO. Jacob LJ appeared to the Supreme Court to have been looking for a description that showed that a particular use for the product had actually been demonstrated rather than that the product had plausibly been shown to be "usable". The EPO Technical Board of Appeal ("TBA") had – in contrast - regarded the latter as an industrial activity in itself..

Factual background

In 1996 Human Genome Science Limited filed an application for a novel human protein called Neutrokine-α, which was granted by the European Patent Office in 2005. The inventive concept of this patent was the identification of a new member of the TNF ligand superfamily (Neutrokine-α) and the elucidation of its nucleic acid and amino acid sequences.

It is important to note the precise ambit of the invention in this case, as this is critical to understanding the test of industrial applicability established by the Supreme Court's judgment, and the extent to which this has a wider impact across Europe. The patent included the following features:

(i) the existence and amino acid sequence of Neutrokine-α

(ii) the nucleotide sequence of the gene encoding for Neutrokine-α

(iii) the tissue distribution of Neutrokine-α

(iv) the expression of Neutrokine-α by its mRNA (the encoding gene) in T-cell and B-cell lymphomas, and

(v) the information that Neutrokine-α is a member of the TNF ligand superfamily.

The patent also contained contentions as to the biological and potential therapeutic properties of Neutrokine-α and its antibodies. These included that Neutrokine-α would be active in directing the proliferation, differentiation, and migration of T-cells. The gene sequence for Neutrokine-α had been identified using bioinformatics (computational biology) rather than the standard route of a lab-based technique. This meant that the patentee was unable to resolve Neutrokine-α's actual activity.

The first member of the TNF superfamily was TNF-α, which by the patent's application date in 1996 had long been known as a cytokine with a significant role in regulating immune cells. At least eight other members of the superfamily family had also been found (including TNF-β).

Members of this superfamily had various features. Amongst others, all played a role in the regulation of T-cell proliferation and T-cell mediated immune responses, some played a role in inducing cell death, and TNF-α and TNF-β functioned as primary mediators of immune regulation and inflammatory response. However, at the relevant date only TNF-α had been shown to have a therapeutic application (the treatment of rheumatic arthritis).

The problem with the patent – and which led to the present dispute – is that the patent's contentions as to the biological and potential therapeutic properties of Neutrokine-α and its antibodies were all predictions. These were substantially based on the proposition (and no more) that Neutrokine-α is one of the members of the TNF ligand superfamily. In essence the patent appeared to be little more than a claim to an arbitrary member of the TNF ligand superfamily without a known function.

As a general point, once the nucleic acid sequence of a new member of the TNF ligand superfamily becomes available, it is then possible to use well known techniques to express the protein, analyze its structure, develop antibodies, and then make therapeutics and diagnostics for diseases associated with under or over expression of this protein.

In the early 1990s the use of computational bioinformatics enabled researchers to identify genes (and the proteins for which they encode) by comparing their sequences with previously identified and characterised genes. But this did not make it possible to determine – at least, not conclusively – the actual activity of any gene or protein until cloned and subject to in vitro and in vivo assays.

The dispute

After the patent was granted in 2005 it was opposed in the EPO by Eli Lilly (who was itself conducting an R&D program to commercialise Neutrokine-α), together with parallel UK revocation proceedings.

The central issue in both sets of proceedings was whether, in the light of the common general knowledge at October 1996, by disclosing the facts summarised above (i.e. the existence and structure of Neutrokine-α, the sequence of its encoding DNA, its tissue distribution, its expression, and its membership of the TNF ligand superfamily), the patent satisfied the EPC test of industrial applicability so that HGS could claim the encoding gene for Neutrokine-α.

The EPO Opposition Division revoked the patent on the basis that the claimed invention constituted no more than a claim to an arbitrary member of the TNF ligand superfamily without a known function. This was overturned by the TBA.

The TBA held that the patent's notional skilled addressee would have appreciated in the light of the common general knowledge of the TNF ligand superfamily and its properties that Neutrokine-α would - as stated by the patent - be "active in directing the proliferation, differentiation, and migration of T-cells". The TBA concluded that "the description of the patent delivers sufficient technical information, namely the effect of Neutrokine-α on T-cells and the tissue distribution of Neutrokine-α mRNA, to satisfy the requirement of disclosing the nature and purpose of the invention and how it can be used in industrial practice." The TBA therefore held that that was a sufficient function to satisfy the test of industrial applicability under Article 57.

Meanwhile in the English revocation proceedings the Patents Court (Mr Justice Kitchin) revoked the patent expressly on the basis of the common general knowledge. He held that that in the light of the common general knowledge the notional addressee of the patent would have concluded that the functions of Neutrokine-α "were, at best, a matter of expectation and then at far too high a level of generality to constitute a sound or concrete basis for anything except a research project". He concluded that simply identifying a protein was not necessarily sufficient to confer industrial utility upon it.

This reasoning was upheld and approved by the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Jacob) even though by that stage the TBA's decision upholding the patent had been handed down.

The importance of consistency between national courts and the EPO

As a general point the national courts of the EPC member states and the EPO are meant to interpret the EPC in the same way. And in doing so the national courts will pay due deference to reasoned and detailed decisions of the senior courts of other member states (such as the English Court of Appeal and UK Supreme Court), so that as harmonised an approach as possible is followed across EPC member states.

This contrasting set of decisions therefore opened up a distinct gap between the jurisprudence of the UK and the EPO (and potentially of the EPC member states). The jurisprudential problem was whether the Court of Appeal had effectively set too high a standard for industrial applicability in the context of a patent for biological material.

The Supreme Court reiterated the central importance of a commonality of approach between the EPO and the Courts of EPC member states. Both apply the principles contained in the EPC. The Supreme Court stated expressly that it is plainly appropriate in principle, and highly desirable in practice, that all these tribunals interpret the provisions of the EPC in the same way.

The correct approach was that where the TBA has adopted a consistent jurisprudential approach to an issue, it would require very unusual facts to justify a national court not following that approach. When the question is one of principle, uniformity in interpretational approach is desirable so far as possible. National courts are however entitled to come to different conclusions for example where the evidence may be different, and are always entitled to ignore a TBA decision which a national court considers may take the law in an inappropriate direction, misapplies previous EPO jurisprudence, or fails to take a relevant argument into account.

Footnotes

1 Human Genome Sciences Inc v. Eli Lilly & Co [2011] UKSC 51, 2 November 2011

2 BDPI Photophase/Max-Planck T 0870/04, para 4, and Hematopietic receptor/ZymoGenetics T 0898/05, paras 2 and 4).

3 T 0898/05, para 6, and PF4A receptors/Genentech T 0604/04, para 15.

4 T 0870/04, para 21 and T 0898/05, paras 6 and 21.

5 T 0604/04, para 22, T 0898/05, para 6.

6 T 0604/04, para 15, T 0898/05, paras 6, 22 and 31.

7 T 0870/04, paras 6-7, 11, and 21; and T 0898/05, paras 7, 10 and 31.

8 T 0898/05, paras 21 and 31, and Serine protease/Bayer T 1452/06, para 5.

9 Factor 9/John Hopkins T 1329/04, paras 6 and 11, T 0640/04, para 6, T 0898/05, paras 8, 21, 27 and 31, T 1452/06, para 6, and T 1165/06 para 25.

10 T 1329/04, para 12, T 0898/05, para 24, T 1452/06, para 6, and IL-17 related polypeptide/Schering T 1165/06, para 25.

11 T 0898/05 paras 29-30.

12 T 1329/04, para 13, T 0898/05, para 21, T 1165/06, paras 14 and 16, and T 0870/04, para 12.

13 T 1329/04, para 4, T 0604/04, para 22, and T 1165/06, paras 14 and 16.

14 T 0604/04, para 18.

15 T 0898/05 para 24, T 1452/06, para 5.

16 T 0870/04, para 12, T 0604/04, para 16, T 0898/05, para 27.

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the Mayer Brown Practices). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP, a limited liability partnership established in the United States; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership, and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2011. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.