REGISTER now: Sweden Event - A new era for innovation: AI, the UPC and global patent opportunities
​

IPKat: Further analysis of Generics (t/a Mylan) v Yeda and Teva

No items found.
​
July 18, 2012
#
Litigation
#
Life
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

In addition to an earlier summary by Darren Smyth of the ruling in Generics (t/a Mylan) v Yeda and Teva, Darren has provided further analysis for the IPKat.

Darren's article looks at the issue of the interpretation and clarity of two features in the patent claims.

The case relates to a European patent owned by Yeda (for which Teva is exclusive licensee) for Teva’s glatiramer acetate product marketed under the trademark Copaxone.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Scripps mRNA reengineering patent found invalid and not infringed by Comirnaty
08 September 2026
The Local Division Munich invalidated Promosome's licensed mRNA patent over Scripps' codon-optimisation method, then found BioNTech's Comirnaty vaccine would not have infringed the claims even had they been valid.
​
Fujifilm v Kodak: clarifying the defence of dependent claims and inventive-step combinations at the UPC
27 August 2026
The Court of Appeal gave guidance on defending dependent claims, relying on EPO central limitation during UPC proceedings, and pleading revocation attacks. It also emphasised that inventive-step combinations require a proper pointer to the secondary reference.
​
Can Reference Numerals Influence Claim Interpretation?
21 August 2026
In T 0903/24, the EPO Board of Appeal relied on reference numerals to interpret disputed claim language, rejecting the patentee's narrower reading and revoking novelty over prior art D2 for the main request.
​