UK Court Holds “Consisting Essentially of” Language does not give Rise to “Objectionable Uncertainty”

Anan Kasei v Neo Chemicals

Though the claims at issue in this UK infringement action recited properties that could be deemed to be the claimed oxide’s “essential characteristics,” it is interesting to compare this case with HZNP v. Horizon Pharma (see my recent post for further details), recently decided by the Federal Circuit. The UK Court of Appeal held that the recitation of “consisting essentially of” in the claims at issue did not render the claims of EP 1435338 ambiguous or uncertain.

Does anyone else remember a time when it was easier to get something allowed in the US than the EP?

No more, my friends, no more.