The Court of Appeal overturned the Patent Court’s first instance decision concerning the validity of one of ICOS’s patents (licensed to Eli Lilly) covering a 1 to 5mg dosage form of tadalafil (Cialis®) for oral administration up to a maximum of 5mg per day for the treatment of sexual dysfunction. The Court held that the…
In a case concerning two patents in the field of underwater mine clearance, the Court of Appeal upheld the Patents Court’s decision that claims 1 and 2 of the 576 Patent were invalid for obviousness, but allowed the appeal in relation to the validity of the 861 Patent, finding that the claims in question were…
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal filed by Cubist against the Patents Court decision that one of its patents relating to antibiotic daptomycin was invalid for obviousness. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that the first instance Judge had an ample evidential basis to find the claimed invention obvious, his finding was properly reasoned…
The Court of Appeal decided to stay appeal proceedings and refer a question to the CJEU concerning the circumstances in which an active ingredient that is a member of a class of compounds which fall within a Markush definition in a claim of a patent would be deemed ‘protected’ by the patent within the meaning…
Following the Court of Appeal’s decision that two of Regeneron’s patents were valid and infringed, it refused to grant Kymab permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, but held that the injunction against Kymab should be stayed, subject to certain conditions, whilst Kymab applied directly to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal. The Court…
The Court of Appeal overturned the Patents Court decision to strike out Glaxo Group’s (GSK’s) claim for an Arrow declaration in proceedings concerning a number of patents relating to dry powder inhaler formulations used in the treatment of respiratory diseases. The Court of Appeal held that GSK’s claim for an Arrow declaration was sufficiently realistic…
The Court ordered a twelve month stay of the injunction granted when it found one of Boston’s patents concerning a transcatheter heart valve (THV) valid and infringed by Edwards’ medical device, in order to allow for the re-training of clinicians to use non-infringing THVs. The Court also held that, even after that stay, the injunction…
The Supreme Court concluded that it was appropriate for it to reformulate the so-called Improver (or ‘Protocol’) questions, which provide guidance as to whether a variant is immaterial where there is no literal infringement. The significant change is the introduction of hindsight into the determination of the second question: “Would it be obvious to the…
In a case concerning two divisional patents derived from the same parent application, relating to ‘transcatheter heart valves’ or THVs, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision that one patent was invalid for lack of inventive step and the second patent was valid. The Court of Appeal also provided guidance on cross-examination of…
In a case concerning two divisional patents derived from the same parent application relating to ‘transcatheter heart valves’ or THVs, which can be introduced via a blood vessel, rather than through open heart surgery, the Court held one patent invalid for lack of inventive step, though had it been valid it would have been infringed….
