UCL  IRIS
Institutional Research Information Service
UCL Logo
Please report any queries concerning the funding data grouped in the sections named "Externally Awarded" or "Internally Disbursed" (shown on the profile page) to your Research Finance Administrator. Your can find your Research Finance Administrator at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/finance/research/rs-contacts.php by entering your department
Please report any queries concerning the student data shown on the profile page to:

Email: portico-services@ucl.ac.uk

Help Desk: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ras/portico/helpdesk
Publication Detail
Plausibility and Policy
  • Publication Type:
    Journal article
  • Publication Sub Type:
    Article
  • Authors:
    Jacob R
  • Publisher:
    Lawtext Publishing
  • Publication date:
    01/02/2021
  • Pagination:
    223, 233
  • Journal:
    Bio-Science Law Review
  • Volume:
    17
  • Issue:
    6
  • Status:
    Published
  • Print ISSN:
    1365-8867
  • Language:
    English
Abstract
In 2006, ‘plausibility’ entered the lexicon of European patent law and, for good or ill, it has maintained a high profile ever since. In this article, Professor Sir Robin Jacob, Director of the Institute of Brand and Innovation Law at UCL Laws, investigates the origins and potential rationales of this nebulous requirement. The article considers plausibility, particularly as discussed by Lord Sumption in Warner-Lambert v Mylan [2018] UKSC 56, from a variety of perspectives: the statutory language of the European Patent Convention, patent theory, possible policy concerns, and pre-EPC statute and case law relating to somewhat speculative inventions (in case the doctrine existed already albeit under some another name). It concludes that the Warner-Lambert conception of plausibility can only be justified based upon an over-strict view of ‘patent bargain’ theory, which is far removed from the real world of research, particularly in the pharma field. Patents for uncertain prospects are not only necessary, but granting them is supported by a more realistic ‘bargain’ theory, which the article sets out. Moreover, the approach of the EPO’s Technical Board of Appeal continues to mirror that favoured by the Court of Appeal in Warner-Lambert, which the Supreme Court majority (ostensibly following EPO jurisprudence) rejected for being too lax.
Publication data is maintained in RPS. Visit https://rps.ucl.ac.uk
 More search options
UCL Researchers
Author
Faculty of Laws
University College London - Gower Street - London - WC1E 6BT Tel:+44 (0)20 7679 2000

© UCL 1999–2011

Search by