Is Germany no longer the Eldorado for preliminary injunctions (“PI”) applicants? Whatever the answer to this question, the UPC local division of the most famous German patent forum (i.e., Düsseldorf) has rejected Novartis and Genentech’s application for a PI against Celltrion relating to the anti-IgE antibody marketed under the name Xolair® (omalizumab), ruling that there…
While the patentability of further medical use claim defined by a dosage regimen used to be ruled out, the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal has accepted them since decision G 2/08 in 2010. This patentability was also strongly debated before the French Courts, even after G 2/08, before being eventually recognized, although the interpretation of…
Reading the title of this paper, perhaps you will smile, thinking about all the discussions that this issue has already ignited, even before the UPC came into force. Since the beginning, most patentees in the pharmaceutical field were suspicious concerning the new jurisdiction, especially regarding the same old question: pro-patentee or not? Hostile/not hostile to…
This morning, the Barcelona Appeal Court has announced a judgment of 18 July 2024, reversing the judgment of 15 January 2024 from Commercial Court number 4 of Barcelona, which had found patent EP 1,427,415 (“EP ‘415”), protecting apixaban, to be invalid. The main highlights of the decision may be summarized as follows: The first interesting…
In his Abbott v Dexcom ([2024] EWHC 1664 (Pat)) judgment, published on 28 June 2024, Mr Justice Mellor was faced with the rather unenviable task of determining the approach of the Skilled Team when “due to their differing experiences and expertise” it was unclear if any of the experts were in a position to comment…
The recent rivaroxaban PI cases may have caused you to ask yourself whether the American Cynamid principles for determining whether or not to grant preliminary injunctive relief in the UK are dead or at least dying. In this article we consider the facts of the rivaroxaban PI applications and aim to tease out some principles…
From the potpourri of decisions that the Swiss Federal Supreme Court handed down last year, I have selected one in subjective hindsight that I consider to be particularly relevant regarding further cases. The outcome of most decisions of the Swiss Federal Patent Court in 2023 heavily depended on the specific circumstances and the effects of…
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…
On 4 May 2023, a mere two weeks after the conclusion of the hearing, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Sandoz and Teva v BMS. The appeal decision is centred on the question of plausibility and comes hot on the heels of the Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision in G 2/21. Indeed,…
On 21 March 2023, Meade J gave a bumper judgment in the revocation action brought by Gilead in respect of two of NuCana’s patents from the same family (EP (UK) 2 955 190 and EP (UK) 3 904 365, the “Patents”), which relate to nucleoside analogues. Filling 102 pages, the judgment raises a number of…
