Regeneron v Kymab in the Supreme Court - the impact on life sciences companies

The UK's top court has focused on patent validity in an important case for the life sciences sector.

The dispute involved patent claims covering transgenic mice that were able to produce humanised antibodies. And the question at the heart of the case was; how much information is needed in a patent in order to justify broad claims? If later users of the technology have a major project on their hands to apply it in a useful way, has the patent applicant done enough?

The Supreme Court, in a majority decision, reversed the Court of Appeal and decided that the teaching provided in the patent was insufficient, meaning that the patent was invalid.

Should research-based companies be concerned that their ground-breaking work will not receive the protection it deserves? Or is this a fair outcome that protects competitors from unfair litigation? James Fry discusses what the ruling means for life sciences businesses here.

Our content explained

Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.

Posted by


Mills & Reeve Sites navigation
A tabbed collection of Mills & Reeve sites.
My Mills & Reeve navigation
Subscribe to, or manage your My Mills & Reeve account.
My M&R


Register for My M&R to stay up-to-date with legal news and events, create brochures and bookmark pages.

Existing clients

Log in to your client extranet for free matter information, know-how and documents.


Mills & Reeve system for employees.