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...
High Court maintains status quo on SPCs: Combination patent cannot get extension using Marketing Authorisation of single active agent
Introduction Newron Pharmaceuticals SPA (patentee) appealed a decision of the Comptroller General of Patents to refuse its Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) application on the ground that it did not meet the requirements of Article 3(b) of t...
Court of Appeal rules that there is no territorial restriction on damages for infringement of a UK patent
Anan Kasei Co. Limited & Anor v Neo Chemicals & Oxides (Europe) Limited [2023] EWCA Civ 11 The Court of Appeal has recently delivered judgment dismissing the Claimants’ appeal in the long-running Anan Kasei Co. Limited & Anor v Neo C...
Novartis overloaded with reasons its iron overload treatment Exjade is obvious and not infringed by Teva
Teva v Novartis [2022] EWHC 2847 (Pat) In another patent revocation and infringement counterclaim action between Teva and Novartis, in this instance involving a swallowable tablet version of Novartis’s “Exjade®” used to treat blo...
Significant inventions that have gone under the mainstream radar
Powering Kipchoge Most people interested in sports will be aware of Project 1.59 – Eluid Kipchoge’s 2019 first sub-2 hour marathon. Technology played a significant part; he had an arrow-shaped formation of lead runners to draft, a car to pa...
The Concept of “Technical Character” becomes increasingly relevant for healthcare patents – Lessons from Recent EPO BoA Decisions
As patent attorneys practicing in the healthcare sector, we are encountering more and more inventions which straddle the life and computer science fields. AI and smart technologies are now a central feature in many medical technologies. In claims inco...
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 &...
Loonshot in Surgical Robotics - Patent Landscape Analysis
Loonshot = an idea that’s not just big, it seems mad to even try - Safi Bahcall Robot-assisted surgery is a hot area in Medtech. The number of patent filings in robotic surgery system (patent classification A61B/34) has been increasing drastical...
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...
Inventor as Expert, Unable to Ventilate Appropriate Evidence
In Fleur Tehrani v Hamilton Bonaduz AG & Ors [2021] EWHC 3457 (IPEC), heard before the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, ("IPEC") the court conducted an assessment of the validity of a patent for a method and apparatus for controlling a venti...