Analysis: why the Supreme Court overturned two patent specialists

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Analysis: why the Supreme Court overturned two patent specialists

middcrownct01-0-69.jpg

Mr Justice Kitchin and Lord Justice Jacob were clear that HGS’s patent for the Neutrokine-a protein was invalid for lacking industrial application. But five Supreme Court judges today disagreed. Why?

The five judges unanimously ruled that Article 57 of the EPC does not require patent applications for new genes to provide evidence of clinical tests to show industrial application.

Article 57 says that an invention is susceptible of industrial application if it can be made or used in any kind of industry, including agriculture.

In one of the opinions, Lord Hope said the standard set by the Court of Appeal was "a more exacting one than that used by the Technical Board of Appeal [of the EPO]". Unlike the UK courts, the TBA had allowed HGS’s patent.

"He [Lord Justice Jacob, who wrote the Court of Appeal opinion] appears 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’," wrote Hope.

Meanwhile, Lord Neuberger said that "the basis upon which the Judge [Mr Justice Kitchin] decided the issue was not consistent with the approach adopted by the Board".

The five judges appeared reluctant to overturn the two decisions of the lower courts, which were consistent with each other and both authored by patent specialists based on extensive evidence in the trial court.

But, as Lord Walker argued, there were two points of principle that favoured their interpretation: first, to reduce the risk of a chilling effect on investment in bioscience and second to align the UK’s interpretation of the EPC with that of other contracting states.

"To my mind these considerations justify this Court in taking what would otherwise be a questionable course."

Lord Neuberger, who wrote the main judgment, has a lot of experience in patent law. "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," he said.

He argued that there should be "room for dialogue between a national court and the EPO" but added: "Nonetheless, where the Board has adopted a consistent approach to an issue in a number of decisions, it would require very unusual facts to justify a national court not following that approach."

He also argued that requiring clinical tests to show industrial application would be expensive and time-consuming and it would be hard to keep them confidential.

But he said the Board’s approach in these types of cases is "tolerably clear" and the "hurdle for patentability" should not be set too high".

"I appreciate that the dividing line between ‘plausibility’ and ‘educated guess’, as against ‘speculation’, just like the contrast between ‘a real as opposed to a purely theoretical possibility of exploitation’, can be difficult to discern in terms of language and application, and is a point on which tribunals could often differ," wrote Neuberger.

The case will now be sent back to the Court of Appeal for further hearings.

However, it is not yet clear when these will be heard or by whom. The leading patent specialist in the Court of Appeal is Kitchin, who is automatically disqualified. Lord Neuberger, who wrote the leading Supreme Court opinion today, also normally sits in the Court of Appeal.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The LMG Life Sciences Americas Awards is thrilled to present the 2025 shortlist
A new order has brought the total security awarded to a Canadian tech company to $45 million, the highest-ever by an Indian court in an IP case
Andrew Blattman reflects on how IP practices have changed and shares his hopes for increased AI use and better performance on the stock market
The firm said major IP developments included advising on a ‘landmark’ deal involving green hydrogen production, as well as two major acquisitions
The appointments follow other recent moves in the European market as firms look to bolster their UPC offerings
Deborah Kirk discusses why IP and technology have become central pillars in transactions and explains why clients need practically minded lawyers
IP STARS, Managing IP’s accreditation title, reveals its latest rankings for patent work, including which firms are moving up
Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
Gift this article