‘Businesses using technology protected by standard-essential patents (SEPs) can elect not to take global licensing terms offered by patent holders at any stage, a London court has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 19th July 2019
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘A judge has refused a party’s application to remove their case from the shorter trial scheme.’
Litigation Futures, 22nd February 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘This was an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) and Others [2016] EWCA Civ 1006 which I discussed in The Pregabalin Appeal: Generics v Warner-Lambert 17 Oct 2016. In that appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Mr Justice Arnold in Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) v Warner-Lambert Company LLC [2016] RPC 3, [2015] EWHC 2548 (Pat), [2015] CN 1499 which I blogged in The Pregabalin Trial: Generics (UK) Ltd v Warner-Lambert Company LLC 18 Sept 2015 and his refusal to allow the patent to be amended in Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) v Warner-Lambert Company LLC [2016] RPC 16, [2015] EWHC 3370 (Pat).’
NIPC Law, 6th December 2018
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘The Supreme Court today dismissed an appeal by pharmaceutical company Pfizer, in a case that should provide clarity on patent law surrounding claims for new medical uses for a protected drug. In judgment handed down this morning the court allowed an appeal by generic drug makers Actavis and Mylan. The decision means Pfizer’s patent covering a second medical use for its product is invalid.’
Law Society's Gazette, 14th November 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The UK government should consider changing patent law to incentivise major pharmaceutical companies to develop new antibiotics to address the “grave threat to health” posed by antimicrobial resistance (AMR), a committee of MPs has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 1st November 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The owner of an item embodying patented technology is allowed to have the item repaired, but if the repairing goes too far it can stray into “making” the item and infringe the patent. A recent ruling explores the boundary between making and repairing, providing some helpful pointers in relation to complex products.’
Technology Law Update, 30th October 2018
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘FRAND stands for “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory”. It is an acronym to describe the terms upon which licences should be granted for standard essential patents (“SEPs”). SEPs are patents for inventions that are crucial for compliance with a technical standard. I attempted an introduction to FRAND terms and SEPs in FRAND on 8 Oct 2017. Lord Kitchin gave a much better one in the first five paragraphs of his judgment in Unwired Planet International Ltd and Another v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and Another [2018] EWCA Civ 2344 (23 Oct 2018).’
NIPC Law, 28th October 2018
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘It is possible for more than one set of proposed licensing terms for standard-essential patents (SEPs) to be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND), the Court of Appeal in London has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 24th October 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A battle over appropriate licensing methods for patents deemed essential for a particular industry’s technical standards could be heading to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal today upheld a lower court’s ruling. Companies that own SEPs are required to license those patents at a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory rate, known as FRAND. In Unwired Planet v Huawei, the Court of Appeal accepted the High Court’s determination that an owner of a standard-essential patent (SEP) for mobile phones can meet its obligations to making rights available fairly by offering a worldwide licence. Lord Justice Kitchin’s ruling added that if that offer is refused, an alleged infringer may be subject to an injunction.’
Law Society's Gazette, 23rd October 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The UK government has revealed that a deal was struck earlier this year to enable the UK to participate in the new Unified Patent Court (UPC) system during any Brexit implementation period that might apply.’
OUT-LAW.com, 8th August 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘This was an appeal by the claimant company, A P Racing Ltd (“AP”), against the decision of His Honour Judge Hacon in AP Racing Ltd v Alcon Components Ltd [2017] EWHC 248 (IPEC) (15 Feb 2017). His Honour held that one of 7 disk brake calipers manufactured by Alcon Components Ltd (“Alcon”) infringed UK patent no. GB 2,452,690 for a disc brake caliper body and a disc brake caliper comprising such a body but the other 6 did not. AP appealed against the finding of non-infringement in relation to 2 of Alcon’s calipers, CAR 1249 and CAR 37.’
NIPC Law, 24th June 2018
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘The UK’s recent ratification of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement marked an important step towards a new system of unitary patent protection becoming operational. The process has been lengthy and complex and is not over yet.’
OUT-LAW.com, 1st May 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Daptomycin is an antibiotic used to treat systemic and life-threatening infections caused by multiple drug resistant bacteria. Its effectiveness depends on its purity. The invention for which the patent in suit was granted was a way of purifying the antibiotic. In Hospira UK Ltd v Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC [2016] EWHC 1285 (Pat) (10 June 2016), Hospira UK Ltd, (a British subsidiary of Pfizer) sought the revocation of that patent. Mr Justice Henry Carr found that the patent was invalid and ordered its revocation. Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC (a subsidiary of Merck & Co.) appealed against that judgment and order in Hospira UK Ltd v Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC [2018] EWCA Civ 12 (18 Jan 2018).’
NIPC Law, 24th January 2018
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘In FRAND 8 Oct 2017 I discussed the terms upon which patents for inventions that are essential to a standard are licensed. I noted that courts around the world had held that those terms should be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory – in other words, FRAND. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Asustek Computer Incorporation and Others [2017] EWCA Civ 1526 (11 Oct 2017) concerned the construction of a clause licensing such patents. It is important to note, however, that none of the judges who heard the appeal mentioned the acronym, FRAND, and it appeared only twice in the judgment of the trial judge.’
NIPC Law, 13th October 2017
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘FRAND stands for “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory”. It refers to the terms upon which the owner of a patent for an invention that is essential to a standard (“standard essential patent” or “SEP”) should license its use.’
NIPC Law, 8th October 2017
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘Supreme Court (Lords Neuberger, Mance, Clarke, Sumption and Hodge) Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and others [2017] UKSC 48 (12 July 2017)
What the Appeal was about
The pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and Co (“Lilly”) has developed a drug called pemetrexed which it markets under the brand name Alimta for the treatment of various types of cancer. Used on its own, pemetrexed has unpleasant side effects that can sometimes be fatal but these can be avoided when it is administered as a compound called pemetrexed disodium in combination with vitamin B12.’
NIPC Law, 13th July 2017
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘A piece of legislation that UK law makers must pass so that the country can ratify a new Unified Patent Court (UPC) system in Europe has been laid before parliament.’
OUT-LAW.com, 26th June 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The first defendant in the first of two claims entered into a licence with the claimant in respect of a portfolio of patents, including a US patent, concerning tocilizumab, an immunosuppressive drug. The claimant sought, inter alia, a declaration that it was not obliged to continue to pay royalties under the licence in respect of its tocilizumab products. The defendants alleged that, although framed as a claim for a declaration relating to a contract, a part of the proceedings, in substance, concerned not only the scope but also the validity of the US patent. Accordingly, consideration of the claim would infringe the territorial limits of the courts jurisdictional powers and constitute an affront to comity (“the Moçambique rule”) and/or the foreign act of state doctrine, which militated against the English court determining issues relating to sovereign acts of a foreign state.’
WLR Daily, 26th May 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Chinese mobile device manufacturer Huawei has lost a legal challenge against the validity of a patent owned by Unwired Planet.’
OUT-LAW.com, 25th April 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Finnish mobile device manufacturer Nokia was due to argue that Apple has infringed one of its technology patents before the High Court in London on Friday.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th April 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2019