By Jan Lindberg and Kiira Lehtonen About a year ago we had an exceptional case in Finland where Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, Ranbaxy UK Limited and Ranbaxy Pharma AB (“Ranbaxy”) were awarded millions in damages in a case against Warner-Lambert Company LLC and Pfizer Oy (“Pfizer”), given in June last year (Helsinki District Court, case L…
The 23rd Annual Fordham Intellectual Property Law and Policy Conference 2015 has kicked off with opening remarks from Hugh Hansen from Fordham University School of Law, New York, reminding everyone to learn, debate and have fun! David J Kappos has started the panel debate on the state of IP in China with a story about…
Multiple rulings of the CJEU on the SPC Regulation fail to answer questions posed by the national courts, result in greater confusion and give rise to a need for yet more references. Introduction In Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd v Medimmune Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 181, Mr Justice Arnold was required to apply the recent…
by Max v. Rospatt In a recent decision the Landgericht Duesseldorf (4a O 277/10 – Pramipexol) issued a preliminary injunction against a generic company before the generic was listed in one of the usual publications (Rote Liste, Lauer Taxe etc.). Plaintiff asserted infringing marketing activities solely based on information obtained from an independent market research…
The English Court of Appeal dismissed Novartis’ appeal against the finding of the Patents Court that Novartis’ patent for a sustained release formulation of fluvastatin was invalid for obviousness. The case was unusual because, at first instance, Warren J. had held the patent to be inventive on a conventional analysis but then went on to find it obvious using an acontextual approach. The Court of Appeal discussed the correct approach to the question of obviousness in English law, by reference to both the problem and solution approach developed by the European Patent Office and the established four-step approach developed by the English Courts in Windsurfing v Tabur Marine and Pozzoli v BDMO .
