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.

Case Law, Equivalents, Infringement, Inventive step, Patents, Revocation, Scope of protection, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/

On 4 August 2022, the English Patents court handed down its decision in Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd v The NOCO Company, a case on battery-powered car jump starters. The decision of Mr Justice Meade is of particular interest as it addresses experts and hindsight, the third limb of the Actavis questions on the doctrine…

Case Law, United States of America, Validity

(Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US)/ /1 Comment

Because the patent failed to disclose the absence of a loading dose, the no-loading-dose limitation was without adequate written description support. A divided Federal Circuit panel has reconsidered and reversed a prior decision finding that a patent owned by Novatis for administering a drug to treat relapse multiple sclerosis was not invalid for lack of…

Amendments, Case Law, Competition, Generics, Kluwer Patent Cases, Litigation, Patents, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent, Procedure, Revocation, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/

On 15 to 17 December 2021 a three-day trial took place to determine preliminary issues in a second action brought by Neurim against Mylan in relation to patents protecting the product Circadin (“Neurim v Mylan 2021”).  Meade J’s judgment (Neurim Pharmaceutical (1991) Limited and Anor v Generics (UK) Limited t/a Viatris and Anor [2022] EWHC…

Litigation, Pharmaceutical patent, Plausibility, Second Medical Use, Sufficiency of disclosure, United Kingdom, Validity

, (Bristows)/ /1 Comment

In undoubtedly one of the most important decisions of the year so far, on 24 August 2021, the English Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in FibroGen v Akebia (FibroGen Inc v Akebia Therapeutics Inc [2021] EWCA Civ 1279), partially allowing FibroGen’s appeal, and so finding one of the ‘Family A’ patents, EP 823,…

(Indirect) infringement, Germany, Legal costs, Patents, SEP, Validity

, (Hoffmann Eitle)/

The German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) confirmed that for setting the value in dispute of nullity actions on standard essential patents (SEPs) the well-established general rule applies, i.e. in the absence of special circumstances the value is 125% of the value of the infringement action(s) on the same patent (Order of May 11, 2021,…

Case Law, EPC, EPO, Litigation, Netherlands, Procedure, Validity

(Brinkhof)/ /16 Comments

The interplay between EPO and national proceedings may take various forms. The Technical Board of Appeal revoking a European Patent during European-wide litigation is one of the more dramatic examples. The EPO’s stay of the grant of an application following an entitlement claim (an ‘entitlement torpedo’) another one. And then there is the central limitation…

Case Law, Novelty, Public prior use, United Kingdom, Validity

(City, University of London) and (University School of Law and Legal Studies, New Delhi)/ /12 Comments

On 22 April 2021 the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) gave a judgement in Claydon Yield-O-Meter v Mzuri, a UK case on patent invalidity because of prior disclosure. As is known, in order for an invention to be considered new under Section 2(2) of the UK’s Patents Act 1977, it must not form part of…

AI, Case Law, EPO Decision, Inventive step, ownership, Patents, Sufficiency of disclosure, Validity

(Dhenne Avocats/Paris-Panthéon-Assas University/OECD)/

I can imagine what the reader might think when reading these few lines: another text on artificial intelligence (“AI”) and the Patent Law! (With perhaps: the author is obsessed with the Daft Punk split[1]). My mantra is: “Never disappoint the reader”! So both are true. That said, concerning the reception of AI by Patent Law…

(Indirect) infringement, Case Law, Equivalents, evidence, Kluwer Patent Cases, Legislation, Litigation, Patents, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent, Prior art, Procedure, Scope of protection, Sufficiency of disclosure, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/ /1 Comment

As reported in last week’s post, on 20 January 2021 Birss J handed down what may be his last first instance decision before his elevation to the Court of Appeal.  The first post on the judgment considered the issues of identifying the skilled person, insufficiency and infringement.  This second part considers the decision relating to…

(Indirect) infringement, Case Law, Equivalents, evidence, Kluwer Patent Cases, Legislation, Litigation, Patents, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent, Prior art, Procedure, Scope of protection, Sufficiency of disclosure, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/ /1 Comment

On 20 January 2021 Birss J handed down what may be his last first instance decision before he takes his place in the Court of Appeal.  If that turns out to the case then Illumina Cambridge Limited v Latvia MGI Tech SIA and others is a substantial judgment to mark this departure.  In this case…