‘In this case comment, Caitlin Heard, Frances Denney and Robert Stephen, who all work within the intellectual property team at CMS, comment on the judgment handed down by the Supreme Court in June 2020 in the matter of Regeneron v Kymab [2020] UKSC 27, which concerns whether patents were invalid for insufficiency.’
UKSC Blog, 2nd July 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc filed patents for a new type of genetically modified mouse which was a hybrid version of the gene that produces antibodies, combining a section of the mouse’s genetic material with a section of the genetic material from a human. In 2013, Regeneron sued Kymab Ltd for infringements of its patents. Kymab was producing its own genetically modified mice, with a similar genetic structure to Regeneron’s mice. Kymab argued that the patents filed were invalid because they fell foul of a patent law rule called sufficiency which means that documents filed with the patent must be detailed enough to enable scientifically skilled readers to make the invention for themselves. The Court of Appeal upheld the patents and Kymab appealed to the Supreme Court.’
UKSC Blog, 24th June 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘In Evalve Inc and others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd #1 [2020] EWHC 514 (Pat) (12 March 2020)). Mr Justice Birss held that two patents that protected the market for a device known as the MitraClip were valid and infringed. In Evalve Inc and others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd (#2) [2020] EWHC 513 (Pat) (12 March 2020) Mr Justice Birss rejected the defendant’s contention that it should be allowed to market its product notwithstanding the judgment on the ground that some patients were assisted by a product that competed with the MitraClip but not by the MitraClip itself. I blogged about those cases in Patents – Evalve Inc. and Others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd. #1 27 March 2020 NIPC Law and Patents – Evalve Inc. and Others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd. #2 30 March 2020.’
NIPC Law, 20th June 2020
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘Owners of patent portfolios will be aware of how patent infringement claims and attacks on patent validity often interact.’
Technology Law Update, 18th June 2020
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘This was an application by Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd. (“Neurim”), the registered proprietor of European patent (UK) number 1441702 and Flynn Pharma Ltd. (“Flynn”) the proprietor’s exclusive licensee for an interim injunction to restrain until trial or further order the generics manufacturer, Mylan, from taking steps that might infringe that patent. The application was heard online by Mr Justice Marcus Smith on 20 May 2020. He handed down his judgment on 3 June 2020.’
NIPC Law, 4th June 2020
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘This was an appeal from the refusal of the hearing officer, Mr Huw Jones, to revoke British patents GB2451719 (“719”) and GB2496951(“951”) (see Rockwool International A/S and Knauf Insulation Limited BL 0/291/19 28 May 2019).’
NIPC Law, 23rd May 2020
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘Intellectual property lawyers report increased demand for services during Covid-19 crisis.’
The Guardian, 24th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Foreign patents could prevent UK citizens accessing treatment for COVID-19, warns Professor Mark Engelman.’
Counsel, May 2020
Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk
‘This was a claim by Akebia Therapeutics Inc.(“Akebia”) and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (“Otsuka”) to revoke 6 patents held by FibroGen Inc. (“FibroGen”). The reason why they sought the revocation of those patents is that they wished to market their own product vadadustat. FibroGen’s exclusive licensee, Astellas Pharma Inc (“Astellas”) brought quia timet infringement proceedings against Akebia, Otsuka and FibroGen. The proceedings came on before Lord Justice Arnold between 2 and 19 March 2020. His lordship delivered judgment on 20 April 2020.’
NIPC Law, 5th May 2020
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘Biotechnology in the United Kingdom is the industry of organisms that manufacture commercial products. Interestingly, it can be quite controversial at times i.e. stem cells and gene cloning. Despite this, biotechnology is integral to advancements in the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 21st February 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘This was an application by the claimant, Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL for disclosure of the licence agreements and assignments relating to 3G and 4G patents that had been entered by the defendants, Huawei Technologies Co Ltd., ZTE (UK) Limited and their British subsidiaries. Substantially the same application had been made to His Honour Judge Hacon at the case management conference in the action which took place in July 2019. The later application was heard by Mr Justice Birss who delivered judgment in Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and others [2020] EWHC 256 (Pat) on 10 Feb 2020. The reference to the CMC in the transcript of Mr Justice Birss’s judgment is [2009] EWHC 1982 (Pat) but I think that must be a misprint for [2019].’
NIPC Law, 22nd February 2020
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘This was a claim for patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation on grounds of anticipation, obviousness and added matter. There was also an application for unconditional and conditional amendments to the patent. The claim and counterclaim came on before His Honour Judge Hacon sitting as a judge of the Patents Court in Technetix BV and another v Teleste Ltd [2019] EWHC 3106 (Pat) (18 Nov 2019). His Honour tried the action in May and delivered judgment on 18 Nov 2019. The learned judge held at paragraph [122] of his judgment that the patent was invalid on all three grounds .and refused the amendments though he found that the patent would have been infringed hand it been valid.’
NIPC Law, 19th November 2019
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘The High Court has declined jurisdiction over an abuse of dominance claim against HEVC Advance (incorporated in Delaware) and Philips (incorporated in the Netherlands).’
Blackstone Chambers, 22nd October 2019
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘Businesses using technology protected by standard-essential patents (SEPs) can elect not to take global licensing terms offered by patent holders at any stage, a London court has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 19th July 2019
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘A judge has refused a party’s application to remove their case from the shorter trial scheme.’
Litigation Futures, 22nd February 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘This was an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) and Others [2016] EWCA Civ 1006 which I discussed in The Pregabalin Appeal: Generics v Warner-Lambert 17 Oct 2016. In that appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Mr Justice Arnold in Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) v Warner-Lambert Company LLC [2016] RPC 3, [2015] EWHC 2548 (Pat), [2015] CN 1499 which I blogged in The Pregabalin Trial: Generics (UK) Ltd v Warner-Lambert Company LLC 18 Sept 2015 and his refusal to allow the patent to be amended in Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) v Warner-Lambert Company LLC [2016] RPC 16, [2015] EWHC 3370 (Pat).’
NIPC Law, 6th December 2018
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘The Supreme Court today dismissed an appeal by pharmaceutical company Pfizer, in a case that should provide clarity on patent law surrounding claims for new medical uses for a protected drug. In judgment handed down this morning the court allowed an appeal by generic drug makers Actavis and Mylan. The decision means Pfizer’s patent covering a second medical use for its product is invalid.’
Law Society's Gazette, 14th November 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The UK government should consider changing patent law to incentivise major pharmaceutical companies to develop new antibiotics to address the “grave threat to health” posed by antimicrobial resistance (AMR), a committee of MPs has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 1st November 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The owner of an item embodying patented technology is allowed to have the item repaired, but if the repairing goes too far it can stray into “making” the item and infringe the patent. A recent ruling explores the boundary between making and repairing, providing some helpful pointers in relation to complex products.’
Technology Law Update, 30th October 2018
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘FRAND stands for “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory”. It is an acronym to describe the terms upon which licences should be granted for standard essential patents (“SEPs”). SEPs are patents for inventions that are crucial for compliance with a technical standard. I attempted an introduction to FRAND terms and SEPs in FRAND on 8 Oct 2017. Lord Kitchin gave a much better one in the first five paragraphs of his judgment in Unwired Planet International Ltd and Another v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and Another [2018] EWCA Civ 2344 (23 Oct 2018).’
NIPC Law, 28th October 2018
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025