Case Law

Case Law, Japan, Pharma

, (Abe, Ikubo & Katayama)/

In Japanese patent litigation, calling expert witnesses is very rare and the parties usually try to prove common technical knowledge (CGK) by submitting documentary evidence, such as publications available as of the priority date and written expert declarations. Thus, parties need to be aware that descriptions in the publications are crucial and cannot be supplemented…

Case Law, EPC, Infringement, Pharma, United Kingdom

(Bristows)/

On 8 October 2021, His Honour Judge Hacon (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) handed down his decision in an action brought by Royalty Pharma Collection Trust (“Royalty Pharma”) for approximately €23 million in royalty payments from Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH (“Boehringer”) (Royalty Pharma Collection Trust v Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH [2021] EWHC 2692 (Pat))….

Case Law, Infringement, United States of America

(Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US)/

The Wako federal district court abused its discretion in fining that The Western District of Texas was a more convenient form that the Northern District of California. The federal district court in Waco, Texas abused its discretion in denying Juniper Networks’ motion to transfer six patent infringement actions filed by a Texas-based patent assertion entity…

Case Law, Netherlands

(Hoffmann Eitle)/

In a new chapter of the ongoing saga of Sisvel’s 4G patents against (mainly Chinese) infringers, the present interlocutory decision shows that the procedural attitude of a defendant (in the present case Wiko) may be very important and can influence the court’s decision. Case date: 21 April 2021 Case number: C/09/583227 / HA ZA 19-1162 Court: District…

Biologics, Case Law, Infringement, United States of America

(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP) and , (Ropes & Gray LLP)/

Submission of an abbreviated Biologics License Application (“aBLA”), under the Biosimilar Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), for a biosimilar version of an already-approved biologic drug constitutes an “artificial act of infringement” for which the biologic’s patent owner may file suit.[1]  In the recent AbbVie Inc. v. Alvotech hf.[2] decision, the district court…

Case Law, Japan, Patents, Pharma

, (Abe, Ikubo & Katayama)/

In the pharma industry, constant battles have been taking place for many decades  between innovators and generics.  More recently, battles among innovators have also started to occur.  This post concerns a case which may have an impact on the development strategies of innovators, as well as licensing strategies of universities and public research institutions which…

Case Law, Italy, SEP

(City, University of London) and (Bocconi University)/ /1 Comment

In April Enrico Bonadio, Luke McDonagh and Francesco Chierichetti reported in this blog four decisions in Italian SEP-related litigations. Since then, thanks to further research and inputs from friends and colleagues, we have come across some other unpublished decisions, which we want to highlight here.   Court of Turin, 4 April 2014 – HTC Europe…

AI, Australia, Case Law

, , (Clayton Utz)/ /9 Comments

[KEYPOINT]: A historic Federal Court decision says an artificial intelligence system is capable of being named as an “inventor” under the Patents Act 1990, with potentially significant ramifications for technological innovation and the patent system in Australia. In the first judicial determination in the world of its type, the Australian Federal Court has held that…

Case Law, United Kingdom

(Bristows)/ /1 Comment

As many Kluwer readers will know, the last 18 months have witnessed a changing of the guard within the English Patents Court with long-standing first instance judges Arnold and Birss JJ being promoted to the Court of Appeal and their shoes in the Patents Court being filled by the highly respected patent practitioners, Meade and…

Case Law, Infringement, Scope of protection, United States of America

(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP) and , (Ropes & Gray LLP)/

The Hatch-Waxman Act allows the FDA to permit a generic version of a branded product, which is partially patent protected, to come to market if the generic manufacturer “carves out” the patent-protected indication from its label. The scope of protection from a finding of induced infringement afforded to generic manufacturers by this “skinny label” provision…