‘In Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Others [2007] Bus LR 1796, [2007] BusLR 1796, [2008] 1 All ER 425, [2007] UKHL 43 Lord Hoffmann described s.7 (2) and (3) of the Patents Act 1977 as “an exhaustive code for determining who is entitled to the grant of a patent.”‘
NIPC Law, 10th April 2014
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘A new court system that is being set up to handle disputes about unitary patents may not be operational until 2016, the group established to deliver the new system has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 24th March 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The Supplementary Protection Certificate. A marvellous little device for giving back to a patent owner the lost years during which it has been obtaining regulatory approval for its products in those heavily regulated areas: pharmaceuticals and plant protection products. You simply extend the patent by the number of years that the product has spent caught up in the approval process, and there you are. A gain of up to five valuable years on the end of your patent in the prime of the product’s life.’
Technology Law Update, 26th February 2014
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘The English Patents Court had no jurisdiction to review or investigate the decision of European Patent Office (EPO) to register a patent on an application under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, since the United Kingdom’s sovereign power in relation to that issue had been surrendered to the EPO under the European Patent Convention (EPC).’
WLR Daily, 20th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Where, on the basis of a patent protecting an innovative active ingredient and a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product containing that ingredient as the single active ingredient, the holder of that patent had already obtained a supplementary protection certificate (“SPC”) for that active ingredient entitling him to oppose the use of that active ingredient, either alone or in combination with other active ingredients, article 3(c) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 precluded that patent holder from obtaining—on the basis of that same patent but a subsequent marketing authorisation (“MA”) for a different medicinal product containing that active ingredient in conjunction with another active ingredient which was not protected as such by the patent— a second supplementary protection certificate relating to that combination of active ingredients.’
WLR Daily, 12th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Eli Lilly and Co Ltd v Human Genome Sciences Inc (Case C-493/12); [2013] WLR (D) 489
‘Pursuant to article 3(a) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 469/2009, in order for an active ingredient to be regarded as “protected by a basic patent in force” within the meaning of that provision, it was not necessary for the active ingredient to be identified in the claims of the patent by a structural formula. Where the active ingredient was covered by a functional formula in the claims of a patent issued by the European Patents Office (“the EPO”), article 3(a) of that Regulation did not, in principle, preclude the grant of a supplementary protection certificate for that active ingredient, on condition that it was possible to reach the conclusion that the claims related, implicitly but necessarily and specifically, to the active ingredient in question.’
WLR Daily, 12th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Georgetown University v Octrooicentrum Nederland (Case C-484/12); [2013] WLR (D) 487
‘Where, on the basis of a basic patent and a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product consisting of a combination of several active ingredients, the patent holder had already obtained a supplementary protection certificate for that combination of active ingredients, protected by that patent within the meaning of article 3(a) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 469/2009, article 3(c) of that regulation did not preclude the proprietor from also obtaining a supplementary protection certificate for one of those active ingredients which, individually, was also protected as such by that patent.’
WLR Daily, 12th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
HTC Corpn v Nokia Corpn: [2013] EWHC 3778 (Pat); [2013] WLR (D) 468
‘The criteria to be applied in deciding whether or not to grant an injunction for infringement of intellectual property rights were those of efficacy, proportionality, dissuasiveness, the avoidance of creating barriers to legitimate trade and the provision of safeguards against abuse as set out in article 3(2) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/48/EC.’
WLR Daily, 3rd December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘An HTC mobile device will be banned from sale in the UK after Friday afternoon unless the company wins the right to appeal against the imposition of that ban on that timescale.’
OUT-LAW.com, 5th December 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
IPCom GmbH & Co KG v HTC Europe Co Ltd and others: [2013] EWCA Civ ; [2013] WLR (D) 456
‘The Court of Appeal gave guidance concerning the circumstances in which an English court should grant a stay of patent proceedings pending the outcome of parallel proceedings in the European Patent Office.’
WLR Daily, 21st November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A dispute over the alleged infringement of a standard-essential mobile technology European patent will be ruled on by the High Court despite there being ongoing proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO) about whether the patent is valid.’
OUT-LAW.com, 21st November 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“A High Court judge has refused to recuse himself from a case involving an expert witness who was once his academic supervisor at Oxford University.”
Litigation Futures, 6th November 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
“British manufacturer Dyson is suing Samsung over claims that the South Korean firm ‘ripped off’ one of its inventions.”
BBC News, 10th September 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“When I was called to the Bar in 1977 I spent a lot of time studying the Community Patent Convention which of 1975 because I really thought I would need to know about it. Hélas le temps perdu!. I would have spent the time no less profitably in the Seven Stars. Forty years on, as they sing at Harrow, there are signs that something close to the original concept of the Community patent is about to become a reality.”
NIPC Law, 17th August 2013
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
“Where a patent specification made a technical effect “plausible” it was open to a party to mount a challenge to the existence of that effect by the use of later evidence. There was no principled objection to the admission of evidence as to the true nature of the advance made by the invention in connection with an objection of lack of inventive step.”
WLR Daily, 29th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Paragraph 5 of Schedule 4A of the Patents Act 1977, rule 116 of the Patents Rules 2007 and rule 6 of the Patents (Fees) Rules 2007 imposed a regime for the payment of annual fees in accordance with article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 and Council Regulation (EC) No 469/2009. The reference to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 in section 128B of the 1977 Act could be construed as a reference to the Council Regulation (EC) No 469/2009.”
WLR Daily, 24th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“In Novopharm Ltd v. Eli Lilly & Co 2010 FC 915 Mr. Justice Barnes of the Federal Court of Canada declared that Canadian patent no. 2,209,735 for the second medical use of the drug atomoxetine to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults was invalid for inutility. His judgment was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal in Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Canada Ltd 2011 FCA 220. Eli Lilly & Co. applied for leave to appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court but that was refused on 8 Dec 2012.”
NIPC Law, 27th July 2013
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
“When considering a claim for an injunction to prevent a threatened infringement of a patent and a supplementary protection, the court had to consider whether, in all the circumstances, there was a sufficiently strong probability that an injunction was required to prevent the harm to the claimant to justify bringing the proceedings.”
WLR Daily, 9th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Where judgment was given in an English court that a patent, whether English or European, was valid and infringed, and the patent was subsequently retrospectively revoked or amended, whether in England or at the European Patent Office, the defendant was entitled to rely on the fact of the revocation or amendment on an inquiry as to damages in respect of the unamended patent.”
WLR Daily, 3rd July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024