UPC_CoA_529/2024

The Court of Appeal decided appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning PCSK9 antibody patents. Based on the reasoning visible in the excerpt, the Court found that the patent lacked inventive step because the skilled person at the priority date could not reasonably predict whether an antibody targeting secreted PCSK9 would result in a therapeutically effective treatment for hypercholesterolaemia; the prior art (Lagace, Horton, Cunningham) contained only conditional suggestions. The appeals concerned claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step in the context of medical use-format claims. The operative decision is not fully visible in the excerpt but the substantive reasoning strongly indicates revocation.