News Flashes
Showing
T 0192/22 - Is a first medical use claim a magic bullet?
The EIP team was pleased to receive the BoA Decision on T 0197/22 earlier this month, providing the reasons for revocation of Translate Bio’s EP 3318248 B1 at the oral proceedings held in March, where we represented one of the Opponents. The p...
Internet video evidence as prior art? The EPO Boards of Appeal have views...
Recent EPO decision T3000/19 casts doubt on how (and practically, whether) audio/video prior art available on the internet should be cited at the EPO. T3000/19 concerns an appeal from the examining division who had refused an application based on a vid...
Patents Court affirms power to grant injunctions for pre-grant patents, but refuses injunction for Novartis
Swiss drug-maker, Novartis, sought a preliminary injunction to keep Teva and four other generics off the market for its prescription-only relapse remitting multiple sclerosis treatment, fingolimod, sold under the brand name “Gilenya”. The P...
High Court refuses Neurim and Flynn interim injunction against Teva in third instalment of melatonin product dispute
In the third chapter of Neurim and Flynn’s dispute with generic companies, Mr Justice Mellor refused the Claimants’ application for an interim injunction against generic giant, Teva, on the basis that Teva would not be adequately compensate...
Flynn held to be exclusive licensee while both parties at fault on costs in Neurim v Mylan Court of Appeal judgment
On 29 March 2022, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in relation to appeals made by the Claimants (Neurim and Flynn) on two issues. Overturning Marcus Smith J’s decisions, the Court of Appeal, led by Arnold LJ, found (1) Flynn an “exc...
Court of Appeal Maintain Status Quo in Neurim v Mylan By Refusing Injunctive Relief
In the latest flurry of judgments to arise from the Neurim v Mylan (now trading as Viatris) battle over Neurim’s insomnia patent and Mylan’s presence on the market with its generic version, we report here on the developments regarding the &...
G1/22 & G2/22: Entitlement to priority
Background As shown by the figure above, the applications in question are European stage of an application under the Patent Cooperation treaty (PCT) and its divisional applications. These applications claim priority from a priority application which li...
Neurim v Mylan – Is it finally all wrapped up or is the door still open for round 3?
Following on from Mr Justice Meade’s judgment on the preliminary issues in the re-match between Neurim (and Flynn) and Generics (UK) Ltd (now trading as Viatris but formerly Mylan) concerning a divisional patent and Mylan’s generic melatoni...
Déjà vu in melatonin rematch as Neurim v Mylan (Take II) marches on in the UK
With a back catalogue to rival Bob Dylan, the latest development in the Neurim – Mylan battle over Mylan’s generic melatonin product saw Mr Justice Meade referee the trial of preliminary issues in December 2021. In relation to earlier deci...