Human genetics : minutes of evidence, Wednesday 8 February 1995 ... / Science and Technology Committee.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology
Date:
[1995], ©1995
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Human genetics : minutes of evidence, Wednesday 8 February 1995 ... / Science and Technology Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    24/40 (page 94)
    8 February 1995] [Chairman Cont] Chairman, I would say, improve or tighten up or have a more strict requirement for the utility of the invention, and this might address the question of sequences of no known utility, and I would put in a plea for the ability to use compulsory licence provisions in the British Act and elsewhere, a harmonisation of the compulsory licence provisions, which has been flagged up in TRIPS but I do not think that it is very user friendly, and this would also address some of the problems about whether you free to use the downstream research which someone has already developed. Chairman: Very good, thank you for that, Mr Armitage. Dr Lynne Jones 424. Can I just ask on this convention, on the breadth of patent. I have a report here from Nature about the House of Lords case in Biogen, and they [Continued have overturned their patent based on the fact that the claims made in the patent were too broad, so is that going to set a new precedent? (Mr Armitage) You can indirectly attack the breadth of a patent claim on the basis, for example, typically that it goes so wide that it is claiming that which is obvious and therefore it lacks inventiveness, or that it includes things for which the patent description does not provide an enabling disclosure. Now it is often said by the European Patent Office that this is an adequate remedy. I do not believe that it is, and it is not felt to be. i Chairman: Thank you both very much for coming and giving us your views on these matters. We are very grateful to you, Mr Roberts and Mr Armitage.