| dbo:abstract |
Kirin-Amgen, Inc. v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd. is a decision by the House of Lords of England and Wales. The judgment was issued on 21 October 2004 and relates to the scope to be accorded to patent claims, including the doctrine of equivalents. The case and subsequent judgment affirmed principles from a prior case, Catnic Components Ltd. v. Hill & Smith Ltd. The issue was whether the claims of a European patent granted to Kirin-Amgen, Inc. were infringed by Transkaryotic Therapies Inc. and Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd in a situation where there was a remarkable similarity between the technologies employed by the two parties for producing the hormone erythropoietin. Infringement was not found due to the language used in the claims of the Amgen patent. The reasoning in the judgment has presently formed a basis for the current practice of the UK Intellectual Property Office, and other countries that take great consideration of the legal implications of British case law when assessing whether a patent has been infringed by a device or process which is equivalent to the patented invention. (See also Doctrine of equivalents.) (en) |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink |
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1096.html http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/46.html |
| dbo:wikiPageID |
14351738 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageLength |
18949 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger) |
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID |
1082950567 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink |
dbr:Samuel_Porter,_Baron_Porter dbr:Messenger_RNA dbr:Metaphor dbr:Prokaryote dbr:Lord_Brown_of_Eaton-under-Heywood dbr:Lord_Hoffmann dbr:House_of_Lords dbr:Peptide dbr:Pharmaceutical_company dbr:Patent_infringement dbr:Reticulocyte dbr:Gene dbr:SDS-PAGE dbr:Synecdoche dbr:Transcription_(genetics) dbr:Doctrine_of_equivalents dbr:Amino_acid dbr:Erythropoietin dbr:Eukaryote dbr:European_Patent_Convention dbr:Cell_division dbr:Glycoprotein dbr:Microbiological_culture dbr:Haemoglobin dbr:Hoechst_Marion_Roussel dbr:Recombinant_DNA dbc:House_of_Lords_cases dbc:2004_in_British_law dbc:2004_in_case_law dbc:United_Kingdom_patent_case_law dbr:Kidney dbr:Bone_marrow dbr:Lord_Diplock dbr:DNA_sequence dbr:Metonymy dbr:Red_blood_cells dbr:Simile dbr:Improver_v_Remington dbr:Exogenous_DNA dbr:Lord_of_Appeal_in_Ordinary dbr:Lord_Walker_of_Gestingthorpe dbr:Transfection dbr:Promoter_(biology) dbr:Shire_plc dbr:Lord_Hope_of_Craighead dbr:Lord_Rodger_of_Earlsferry dbr:Catnic_Components_Ltd._v._Hill_&_Smith_Ltd. dbr:Gene_activation dbr:Improver_v._Remington dbr:Kirin-Amgen,_Inc. |
| dbp:citations |
[2004] UKHL 46 (en) |
| dbp:fullName |
Kirin-Amgen Inc and others v. Hoechst Marion Roussel Limited and others . Kirin-Amgen Inc and others v. Hoechst Marion Roussel Limited and others (en) |
| dbp:judges |
dbr:Lord_Brown_of_Eaton-under-Heywood dbr:Lord_Hoffmann dbr:Lord_Walker_of_Gestingthorpe dbr:Lord_Hope_of_Craighead dbr:Lord_Rodger_of_Earlsferry |
| dbp:name |
Kirin-Amgen, Inc. v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd (en) |
| dbp:transcripts |
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1096.html http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/46.html |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate |
dbt:Cquote dbt:Italic_title dbt:Reflist dbt:Use_dmy_dates dbt:Cite_patent dbt:Infobox_court_case |
| dct:subject |
dbc:House_of_Lords_cases dbc:2004_in_British_law dbc:2004_in_case_law dbc:United_Kingdom_patent_case_law |
| rdfs:comment |
Kirin-Amgen, Inc. v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd. is a decision by the House of Lords of England and Wales. The judgment was issued on 21 October 2004 and relates to the scope to be accorded to patent claims, including the doctrine of equivalents. The case and subsequent judgment affirmed principles from a prior case, Catnic Components Ltd. v. Hill & Smith Ltd. (en) |
| rdfs:label |
Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd (en) |
| owl:sameAs |
freebase:Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd wikidata:Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd https://global.dbpedia.org/id/4pSSk |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom |
wikipedia-en:Kirin-Amgen_Inc_v_Hoechst_Marion_Roussel_Ltd?oldid=1082950567&ns=0 |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf |
wikipedia-en:Kirin-Amgen_Inc_v_Hoechst_Marion_Roussel_Ltd |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of |
dbr:Kirin-Amgen_v_Hoechst_Marion_Roussel dbr:Amgen_v_Hoechst dbr:Kirin-Amgen_Inc._and_others_v._Hoechst_Marion_Roussel_Ltd._and_others dbr:Kirin-Amgen_Inc._v_Hoechst_Marion_Roussel_Ltd dbr:Kirin-Amgen_Inc_v_Hoechst_Marion_Roussel_Ltd_(2004) dbr:Kirin-Amgen_v_Hoechst dbr:KirinAmgen_v._TKT |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of |
dbr:Doctrine_of_equivalents dbr:Kirin-Amgen_v_Hoechst_Marion_Roussel dbr:Amgen_v_Hoechst dbr:Kirin-Amgen_Inc._and_others_v._Hoechst_Marion_Roussel_Ltd._and_others dbr:Kirin-Amgen_Inc._v_Hoechst_Marion_Roussel_Ltd dbr:Kirin-Amgen_Inc_v_Hoechst_Marion_Roussel_Ltd_(2004) dbr:Kirin-Amgen_v_Hoechst dbr:KirinAmgen_v._TKT |
| is foaf:primaryTopic of |
wikipedia-en:Kirin-Amgen_Inc_v_Hoechst_Marion_Roussel_Ltd |