Actions which impinge upon the monopoly granted by an Intellectual Property right are considered infringements.
On 19 December 2023, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in The NOCO Company v Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 1502. The issue on appeal was whether communications between The NOCO Company (“NOCO”) and Amazon amounted to a “threat of infringement proceedings” for the purpose of s. 70 Patents Act…
On 25 October 2023, HHJ Hacon (sitting as a High Court Judge), rendered his judgment in Philip Morris v Nicoventures[1]. The Claimants (“PMI”) sought revocation of EP (UK) No. 3 367 830 B1 (“EP 830”) and the defendants (“BAT”) counterclaimed for infringement. EP 830 was held to be invalid for lack of inventive step and…
A hefty judgment was recently handed down by Mellor J concerning a patent for a modified release formulation of mirabegron. The patent was held to be valid and not infringed by Sandoz, while infringement with respect to Teva (which had admitted infringement with an earlier version of its product but sought a declaration of non-infringement…
On the last day of the AIPPI World Congress in Istanbul, a packed-out room of attendees was treated to a UPC mock trial. The illustrious judging panel featured three UPC judges, with Edger Brinkman as Presiding Judge joined by Peter Tochtermann and Petri Rinkinen. The mock scenario concerned an application for a preliminary injunction (PI)…
The Status Quo injunction is not a variation on Wayne’s World classic “No Stairway, Denied” joke. While some may yearn for a ban on their generic tunes, Status Quo is still not denied. That is not the faith of all generics, as Teva found out in Dutch litigation over its generic version of Grünenthal’s Nebido:…
In a detailed and impeccably written decision, the Madrid Court of Appeal (Section 32) has ruled in the raloxifene case, awarding damages in the high seven figure region. This is a landmark decision which is likely to shape patent infringement claims and damage quantification, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector. The decision has important implications for…
On 25 July 2023, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Teva & Sandoz v Astellas[1] concerning the validity of Astellas’ patent to mirabegron for use in the treatment of overactive bladder (“OAB”). At first instance, Meade J had held the patent valid and infringement by the generics’ proposed acts was not separately…
A recent decision issued by the federal district court could impact medical use patents in Brazil. In an invalidity lawsuit filed by the Brazilian affiliate of Sun Pharma against Boehringer Ingelheim, Federal Judge Carvalho, sitting at the 9th Federal District Court in Rio de Janeiro, has granted a preliminary injunction ordering the Brazilian Patent and…
Introduction On 17 July 2023, the English Court of Appeal handed down its decision in a dispute between J.C. Bamford (JCB) and Manitou about the confidentiality of information disclosed in the course of litigation between JCB and Manitou relating to the validity and infringement of certain of JCB’s patents. At the heart of the confidentiality…
In a technically complex infringement case, Barcelona Commercial Court no. 1 establishes ad hoc procedural rules for quantification of damages at the enforcement stage. This sheds light on the procedure applicable to follow-on damage quantification proceedings, which are a critical element of enforcement strategy. As such, this case has caught the attention of Spanish patent…
