Ymwadiad: Nid cyngor cyfreithiol yw hwn. Mae deddfwriaeth a chyfraith achosion yn newid. Ymgynghorwch bob amser â chyfreithiwr cymwys ar gyfer eich sefyllfa benodol.

UK Law Reference
Pob achos
Intellectual Property
House of Lords
2004

Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd

[2004] UKHL 46

Ratio Decidendi

Patent claims should be interpreted purposively — ascertaining what a person skilled in the art would have understood the patentee to have used the language of the claim to mean. The Protocol on Interpretation of Article 69 EPC requires a position between strict literal and broad purposive construction.

Ffeithiau

A dispute over the scope of a patent for erythropoietin (EPO) produced by recombinant DNA technology.

Crynodeb o'r dyfarniad

Lord Hoffmann reformulated the approach to patent interpretation, holding that the question is always what the skilled person would have understood the patentee to mean by the language used in the claim.

Dyfyniadau allweddol

"The question is always what the person skilled in the art would have understood the patentee to be using the language of the claim to mean."

— Lord Hoffmann

Triniaeth ddilynol

Good law

Leading authority on patent claim interpretation, though aspects were refined in Actavis v Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48.