Chantal Powel

Legal & Product Engineer

Chantal is a dual-qualified European and UK Patent Attorney with over seven years of experience in the patent profession. Before Solve, Chantal was an Associate in the chemistry team at Carpmaels & Ransford, a leading European IP law firm. Chantal brings significant experience particularly in the small molecule pharmaceutical sector. She holds an MSci in Chemistry from Imperial College, London, and spent time during her degree studying and conducting research at École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.

ARTICLES BYChantal Powel

September 1, 2026When a Broad Markush Claim Comes Under Pressure at the EPOThis case study follows a fictional Markush claim from filing through EPO opposition to show why claim breadth survives pressure only when the application as filed contains explicit, self-contained fallback positions that can be defended under the EPC. A broad genus with no defensible retreat is worth less than a more modest claim drafted with sub-genera held in reserve from day one.Read article

May 14, 2026Teva v. Eli Lilly: The Four Drafting Choices That Won $176.5MThe Federal Circuit Panel's April 16, 2026 decision in Teva v. Eli Lilly reinstates a $176.5M verdict and draws a clear distinction under §112 between method-of-treatment and composition claims. The decision highlights the importance of drafting choices, like those made by Teva 2006. Teva shows how much §112 outcomes turn on drafting choices rather than the volume of disclosure. From a specification describing a single humanized antibody, the patentee framed the invention as a method of treatment, anchored the genus to a known biological target, and relied on humanization as routine art within the POSA's knowledge. These are structural choices, made years before litigation, that shape how a patent reads in enforcement decades later. These choices are exactly what purpose-built tools like Solve Intelligence are designed to surface early on, during drafting, when they can be considered consciously and proactively. The alternative may be that issues only become apparent during litigation, when it is often too late to change a decision that was made previously, whether intentionally or not. Key takeaways Teva v. Eli Lilly (Fed. Cir. Apr. 16, 2026) marks the first clear limit on Amgen v. Sanofi. Amgen's §112 calculus does not extend to method-of-treatment claims reciting an antibody genus. Same specification, same genus, yet the antibody claims failed in IPR while the headache claims won at trial. One humanized antibody, a known biological target, and routine humanization techniques were enough to satisfy §112. Four drafting choices won the case: claim category, functional anchoring, routine art, one embodiment. Teva is a re-opening event for life sciences portfolios with genus claims.Read article