The Supreme Court's decision in Actavis v Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48 has changed the way that the UK courts will determine the extent of protection of a patent's claim. Prior to this decision, since the House of Lords' decision in Catnic Components v Hill [1982] RPC 183 the UK courts has used "purposive construction" in order to establish the scope of a patent's claim.
As famously explained by Lord Hoffmann in the seminal decision of the House of Lords in Kirin Amgen v Hoechst Marion Roussel [2005] RPC 9 the crux of purposive construction is to determine "what the person skilled in the art would have understood the patentee to be using the language of the claim to mean".
Read the full article >