Extent of Protection

The extent or scope of the protection conferred by a European patent or a European patent application shall – cf. Article 69 European Patent Convention – be determined by the claims. Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims.

Amendments, Equivalents, Extent of Protection, Infringement, Litigation, Novelty, Patents, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent, Prior art, Revocation, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/

On 15 October 2020 Meade J. handed down his first ever written judgment in his new role as a Judge of the High Court in MSD v Wyeth. The neutral citation for the case is [2020] EWHC 2636 (Pat) and a link to the judgment is found here. The Judge had heard the case back…

(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…

Equivalents, Extent of Protection, Infringement, Litigation, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent, Scope of protection, United Kingdom

(Bristows)/ /3 Comments

On 12 July 2017, the UK Supreme Court handed down a ruling which caused a shockwave to resound across the UK patent community. For more than a decade, when addressing the issue of the construction and infringement of a patent, every practitioner would have focussed on the question prescribed by Lord Hoffmann in Kirin Amgen:…

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, European Union, Extent of Protection, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Pharma, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Scope of protection, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, SPC, Sweden, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/ /2 Comments

Yesterday, 25 April 2018, AG Wathelet has handed down his opinion in the Teva v Gilead reference (Case C-121/17) suggesting that the question should be answered as follows: “The fact that a substance or combination of substances falls within the scope of protection of the basic patent is a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement for…

Case Law, Extent of Protection, Mechanical Engineering, Scope of protection, United Kingdom

, (Bristows)/

There has been much excitement and comment amongst the UK patent profession following the Supreme Court’s decision in Actavis v Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48 (see previous comment here) on patent claim construction. However, the Court in that case did not clarify how “normal” principles of claim interpretation are now to be applied, and whether…

Australia, Extent of Protection, Inventive step, Scope of protection

, (Clayton Utz)/

The Productivity Commission released its final report into Australia’s IP arrangements in December 2016 (covered in our post earlier this year, ‘IP Rights vs IP Wrongs’).  Now, the Australian Government has weighed in on the Commission’s recommendations, supporting some and ‘noting’ others. With respect to patent law, the Government supports the following recommendations: Add an…

(Indirect) infringement, EPC, Equivalents, Extent of Protection, France, Italy, Scope of protection, Spain, United Kingdom

(Bristows)/ /3 Comments

By Gregory Bacon Yes, you read that right. Thirteen years after the House of Lords had firmly shut the door on any notion of a doctrine extending the scope of patent protection outside the claims, the UK Supreme Court in yesterday’s judgment in Actavis v Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48 reversed gear and reintroduced a…

Australia, Extent of Protection, Inventive step, Scope of protection

, , (Clayton Utz)/

Australia ended 2016 flipping through the pages of the Productivity Commission’s final Inquiry Report on Australia’s Intellectual Property Arrangements. In general, the Commission considers that IP rights encourage innovation, but are not always necessary for it and can often be used harmfully. The proposed changes are aimed at balancing the interests of rights holders with…

Australia, Extent of Protection, NPE, Scope of protection, Validity

, (Clayton Utz)/

On 22 July 2016, IP Australia approved a patent specification involving computer programming in poker machines in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited [2016] APO 49. IP Australia’s decision comes on the heels of the High Court of Australia’s approval of the Full Federal Court decision in Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd [2015]…

Australia, Extent of Protection, Inventive step, Pharma, Scope of protection

, (Clayton Utz)/

On 29 April 2016, the Australian Productivity Commission published a Draft Report on its enquiry into Australia’s Intellectual Property Arrangements. Although the Draft Report provides separate analyses on the state of copyright, patents, designs and trade marks, it arrives at a common conclusion:  Aussie IP needs work. “Not as effective as they could be” The…