Litigation

Case Law, Enforcement, Infringement, Litigation, Patents, Procedure, Revocation, Sufficiency of disclosure, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/

On 9 October 2019, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against the finding that a patent directed towards ceramic compounds was sufficient and allowed two procedural appeals on issues of liability. Anan Kasei and Rhodia (“Rhodia”) are respectively the proprietor and exclusive licensee of a patent for ceric oxide compounds for use in catalytic…

(Indirect) infringement, Case Law, Germany, Infringement, Litigation, Prior use right

(Rospatt Osten Pross )/

The Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice, BGH) clarified the scope and limits of a prior use right of a manufacturer and supplier of components of a patented device (BGH, judgment of 14 May 2019, X ZR 95/18 – Schutzverkleidung). Under German patent law, a patent has no effect with respect to a party who…

Injunction, Litigation, Netherlands, SEP

(Brinkhof)/

While the numerous recent court decisions may suggest so, the ‘F’ in FRAND does not stand for ‘Fashionable’. The reader of this blog, well-informed in patent matters, will know by heart what this acronym spells out. He (or, I say once and for all, she)1 will also know that, next to technical intricacies of assessing…

Antibodies, Case Law, European Union, Litigation, Novelty, Patents, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent, Prior art, Sufficiency of disclosure, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/

Among the flurry of pre-summer vacation judgments coming from the Patents Court is one from Mr Justice Birss (17 July 2019), concerning the validity of Hoffman-La Roche’s patent EP (UK) 2 007 809. EP’809 is a formulation patent for the monoclonal antibody vedolizumab, marketed as Entyvio® and used to treat ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease….

(Indirect) infringement, Case Law, Extent of Protection, Infringement, Litigation, Netherlands, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent

(Brinkhof)/ /16 Comments

Pemetrexed, yet again: last Wednesday the District Court of The Hague, swimming against the current and after a deep dive in the prosecution file, decided that Fresenius did not infringe Eli Lilly’s ‘pemetrexed disodium’ patent with a generic product that does not contain pemetrexed disodium, not even by equivalence. The basic facts of the widespread…

China, Guidelines, Litigation, Patents

(Baker & McKenzie), (Baker & McKenzie FenXun (FTZ)), and (Baker & McKenzie FenXun (FTZ) Joint Operation Office )/ /1 Comment

After several rounds of revisions, the latest draft of the 4th amendment of the Patent Law was released by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (“NPC”) after its first reading in December 2018. This version is expected to be very close to the final amendment. As a response to the “Opinions on strengthening…

(Indirect) infringement, Infringement, Litigation, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent, Russia

(Lidings)/

Russian law provides that information on state registration of drugs shall be publicly available. For a long period, MoH used to turn a blind eye to this obligation, keeping information on all filed applications confidential. Absence of this information used to pose additional risks for patent holders lacking information on the upcoming launches of generic…

Case Law, Equivalents, Infringement, Inventive step, Kluwer Patent Cases, Litigation, Patents, Prior art, Prior use right, Revocation, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/ /2 Comments

A further interesting decision handed down by the Judges of the English Patents Court prior to the Easter break was a judgment from Nugee J concerning proceedings between E. Mishan and Hozelock relating to a UK patent and European patent, both entitled “Expandable Hose Assembly”. E. Mishan (trading as Emson) claimed that Hozelock’s expandable garden…

Case Law, EPC, EPC, Inventive step, Litigation, Patents, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent, United Kingdom

, (Bristows)/

The UK Supreme Court today handed down its decision in Actavis v ICOS. The decision was unanimous, with Lord Hodge giving the only judgment. The case concerns two principal questions. First, how the test for obviousness applies to a dosage patent; and secondly, whether the Court of Appeal was entitled to reverse the judgment of…