In 2008, the English Court of Appeal in Glaxo Group v Genentech ([2008] EWCA Civ 23) gave general guidance on the Patent’s Court discretion to stay legal proceedings on the ground that there are parallel proceedings pending at the European Patent Office concerning the validity of a patent. The “nine step” guidance given by Lord…
Introduction In my previous post of 2 August 2013 I made passing reference to the recent decision of the English Court of Appeal in the Copaxone litigation. This case was an appeal of the decision of Arnold J (previously reported here) where he found Yeda’s patent valid and infringed. With permission of the court, Mylan…
The final week in July is always a busy time in the English Courts as Judges try to hand down judgments before the commencement of the summer vacation which lasts approximately two months. 2013 was no exception with three important patent decisions being given this week– two from the Court of Appeal on the same…
It could be argued that 2013 is proving to be somewhat unkind to UK patentees when it comes to the issues of sufficiency and priority. On 25 June 2013, in a typically comprehensive judgment running to some 90 pages, Arnold J held that Janssen’s patent was invalid for insufficiency. The relevant facts were as follows:…
Judgments from the English Courts are nowadays usually delivered in draft form and in strictest confidence from the Judge’s clerk to the parties by way of an attachment to an email. This invariably causes an anxious lawyer to open the document and to hit “Ctrl/End” to find the conclusion of the Court, followed by a…
Today the UPC Rules Committee is passing the official version of the 15th draft of the UPC Rules of Procedure to the Commission. It is anticipated that this will become the first draft for official release very soon by the Preparatory Committee, and then be the subject of a period (probably three months) of public…
On 21 May 2013, the Court of Appeal issued its rejection of Lilly’s appeal in relation to Actavis’ purported service of an application for a Declaration of Non Infringement (DNI) in respect of not only the UK designation of Lilly’s European Patent relating to a particular salt form of pemetrexed (“the Patent”), but also the…
In its decision of 22 April*, the UK High Court (Mr Justice Arnold) has dismissed Nestec’s** claims that Dualit has infringed EP (UK) 2 103 236 (“the patent”) by supplying its own branded “NX Café Caps” coffee capsules which are compatible with Nestec’s Nespresso coffee machines, thus paving the way for new entrants into the…
On 12 April 2013, Mr Justice Arnold gave judgment in the English High Court in Resolution Chemicals Limited v H Lundbeck A/S ([2013] EWHC 739 (Pat)). Resolution (a generic supplier company) sought revocation of Lundbeck’s SPC/GB02/049 (the “SPC”) for escitalopram, alleging invalidity of the basic patent EP (UK) 0 347 066 (“the 066 patent”). Although…
In our post on 30 October 2012 we referred to forthcoming appeals dealing with how the question of obviousness should be tackled by the English courts. The Court of Appeal has now given its verdict in several judgments. The latest decision in Regeneron v Genentech dealt not only with the question of obviousness but also…
