Validity

In most systems, a patent is valid for 20 years from the filing date of the patent application. Patents are granted with a presumption of validity but no patent is safe from being challenged and declared (partially) invalid by national courts or, in the case of European patents, revoked by the European Patent Office. Often, a claim of invalidity of a patent is a reaction to an action of the patentee, in particular an infringement action.

Inventive step, Patents, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent, Priority right, Spain, Sufficiency of disclosure, Validity

(Clifford Chance)/ /2 Comments

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…

Biologics, Case Law, Covid-19, Damages, Infringement, Inventive step, Patents, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/ /1 Comment

Moderna secured a double victory in the Patents Court last week (2 July 2024) in proceedings against Pfizer and BioNTech.  In the first decision, Meade J found its modified mRNA patent to be valid and infringed by Pfizer and BioNTech’s “Comirnaty” vaccine.  In the second decision, Richards J rejected Pfizer and BioNTech’s defence based on…

Case Law, evidence, Infringement, Inventive step, Novelty, Patents, Pharmaceutical patent, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/

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…

Case Law, EPC, Patents, UPC, Validity

, (Hoffmann Eitle)/ /15 Comments

Following months of speculation, EPO Board of Appeal 3.2.01 yesterday issued decision T 439/22 referring questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal on the extent to which the description and drawings should be used in claim interpretation.   The claim feature at issue was: “in which the aerosol-forming substrate comprises a gathered sheet”. The key…

Equivalents, Infringement, Inventive step, Litigation, Novelty, Patents, Pharma, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/ /2 Comments

Advanced Cell Diagnostics v Molecular Instruments [2024] EWHC 898 (Pat) On 23 April 2024, Mr Justice Meade handed down his judgment in the dispute between Advanced Cell Diagnostics (ACD) and Molecular Instruments (MI). ACD is the proprietor of two European patents which relate to in situ detection of nucleic acids in single cells.  EP (UK)…

Inventive step, Patents, Procedure, United Kingdom, Validity

, (Bristows)/ /1 Comment

Introduction It is common for parties to English patent litigation to settle their differences after the first instance judgment on the merits from the Court.  This is for several reasons including the thoroughness of the Patents Court Judges, the Court of Appeal’s approach to issues such as obviousness (where only an error of principle will…

Case Law, CJEU, Infringement, Injunction, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent, SPC, Switzerland, Validity

(MLL Legal Ltd.)/

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…

Brexit, Case Law, Litigation, Pharma, SPC, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/

Question: I applied for my SPC in reliance on the law as set out in Neurim[1], following Santen[2] can I still obtain my SPC? Answer: No, according to the English High Court[3]. In 2018, i.e. before the Santen decision from the CJEU, Merck applied to the UK IPO for an SPC for its medicinal product…

European Union, Unitary Patent, UPC, Validity

/ /2 Comments

The Unified Patent Court has refused to grant 10x Genomics a second preliminary injunction against rival NanoString, as it was not convinced of the infringement of 10x’s patent. The case concerned European Patent 2 794 928 B1 (EP 928 patent). In a reaction to the decision, 10x Genomics pointed out: ‘the injunctions granted by the…

Case Law, Infringement, Inventive step, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/

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…