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.

Enforcement, evidence, Inventive step, Litigation, Novelty, Patents, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent, Plausibility, Prior art, Revocation, Second Medical Use, Sufficiency of disclosure, United Kingdom, Validity

, (Bristows)/

On 4 December 2020, the English Patents Court handed down its decision in Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Limited & Flynn Pharma Limited v Generics UK Limited (t/a Mylan) & Mylan UK Healthcare Limited, the main action proceedings regarding Neurim’s patent for Circadin™, EP 1 441 702 (“EP 702”).  The judgment is available here. Many readers will…

Amendments, Equivalents, Extent of Protection, Infringement, Litigation, Novelty, Patents, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent, Prior art, Revocation, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/

On 15 October 2020 Meade J. handed down his first ever written judgment in his new role as a Judge of the High Court in MSD v Wyeth. The neutral citation for the case is [2020] EWHC 2636 (Pat) and a link to the judgment is found here. The Judge had heard the case back…

Inventive step, Kluwer Patent Cases, Litigation, Patents, Prior art, Public prior use, Revocation, United Kingdom, Validity

, , (Bristows)/ /16 Comments

Mishan (T/A Emson) v Hozelock & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 871 Since Arnold LJ’s elevation to the Court of Appeal in 2019, he and Floyd LJ have heard about 11 cases together, spanning a mixture of areas of law, some patents cases and some not.  In the majority of these cases, Floyd LJ (or a…

Case Law, India, Infringement, Validity

(B.A.LL.B (Hons) IVth Year)/

It has been a year since the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Delhi High Court in the case of Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu & Ors[1]. However, the step may have proved to be retrograde. Background Monsanto Technology LLC (Monsanto) had a registered patent no. 214436 for Nucleotide Acid Sequence (NAS) containing the…

Amendments, Infringement, Italy, Patents, Procedure, Validity

(Trevisan & Cuonzo)/

In another post (here) I have discussed the procedure for seeking post grant limitation in the framework of Italian court proceedings, and the closing line of that post mentioned that another interesting point of discussion would be when such post-grant limitation should take effect vis-à-vis infringers. In fact, a few decisions have touched this issue…

Case Law, Infringement, Turkey, Validity

, (Gün + Partners)/

A Turkish company active in the automotive sector filed a patent infringement action against a German global automotive company. The Turkish company alleged that a system used in the cars of the German company was infringing its non-examined patent granted by the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (‘TPTO’). As a counter-attack, the German company and…

Case Law, Prior art, United States of America, Validity

(Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US)/

A jury’s verdict that snowmobile frame patents asserted against Arctic Cat were indefinite and invalid as anticipated or obvious was supported by substantial evidence. A federal district court correctly upheld a jury verdict invalidating two Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. snowmobile frame patents because substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings that Bombardier’s patent related to rider…

Case Law, Infringement, Spain, Validity

(Clifford Chance)/

In a complex and interesting validity and infringement case, the Barcelona Court of Appeals (Section 15), Spain’s most experienced patent court, tackles a plethora of issues: linguistic interpretation of European patents; long-time tolerance of patent infringement; assignee estoppel vis-à-vis third parties; claim construction; and indirect evidence of (non)-infringement of a product claim in cases where,…

Case Law, Enforcement, Infringement, Litigation, Patents, Procedure, Revocation, Sufficiency of disclosure, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/

On 9 October 2019, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against the finding that a patent directed towards ceramic compounds was sufficient and allowed two procedural appeals on issues of liability. Anan Kasei and Rhodia (“Rhodia”) are respectively the proprietor and exclusive licensee of a patent for ceric oxide compounds for use in catalytic…

Antibodies, Case Law, European Union, Litigation, Novelty, Patents, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent, Prior art, Sufficiency of disclosure, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/

Among the flurry of pre-summer vacation judgments coming from the Patents Court is one from Mr Justice Birss (17 July 2019), concerning the validity of Hoffman-La Roche’s patent EP (UK) 2 007 809. EP’809 is a formulation patent for the monoclonal antibody vedolizumab, marketed as Entyvio® and used to treat ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease….