Glivec decision raises issues over senior courts ruling in patent cases

No items found.
​
May 10, 2013
#
Litigation
#
Life
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

In his latest IPKat post, Darren Smyth “despairs” at the judgment by the Indian Supreme Court in the recent Glivec decision, refusing the patent application directed to imatinib mesylate in beta crystalline form.

Darren says the Court’s failure to understand novelty is an example of what can happen when non-specialist senior courts rule on specialised areas of law.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Closest Prior Art Not Quite Close Enough
29 May 2026
WIRPLAST v VILPE (UPC Munich, April 2026): a roof-fan disclosure was a fair starting point, but the patent for a through-roof ventilation pipe with a spirit level survived; the skilled person would not have leaped.
​
Transfer of costs application from Court of Appeal to Court of First Instance rejected
22 April 2026
The UPC Court of Appeal ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to assess costs applications and confirmed they must be filed at the Court of First Instance, rejecting a transfer request in Rematec v Europe Forestry.
​
Revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged dependent claims
21 April 2026
In Emporia v Seoul Viosys, the UPC Central Division confirmed that the revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged claims. The decision underscores the importance of challenging all relevant claims where full patent revocation is sought.
​