A patent problem in the global antiviral race? – Counsel
‘Foreign patents could prevent UK citizens accessing treatment for COVID-19, warns Professor Mark Engelman.’
Counsel, May 2020
Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk
Category: patents
Patents – Akebia Therapeutics Inc v Fibrogen, Inc – NIPC Law
‘This was a claim by Akebia Therapeutics Inc.(“Akebia”) and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (“Otsuka”) to revoke 6 patents held by FibroGen Inc. (“FibroGen”). The reason why they sought the revocation of those patents is that they wished to market their own product vadadustat. FibroGen’s exclusive licensee, Astellas Pharma Inc (“Astellas”) brought quia timet infringement proceedings against Akebia, Otsuka and FibroGen. The proceedings came on before Lord Justice Arnold between 2 and 19 March 2020. His lordship delivered judgment on 20 April 2020.’
NIPC Law, 5th May 2020
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
The importance of patents in biotechnology – John Butcher – UK Human Rights Blog
‘Biotechnology in the United Kingdom is the industry of organisms that manufacture commercial products. Interestingly, it can be quite controversial at times i.e. stem cells and gene cloning. Despite this, biotechnology is integral to advancements in the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 21st February 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
Patents – Conversant Wireless Licensing v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and Others – NIPC Law
‘This was an application by the claimant, Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL for disclosure of the licence agreements and assignments relating to 3G and 4G patents that had been entered by the defendants, Huawei Technologies Co Ltd., ZTE (UK) Limited and their British subsidiaries. Substantially the same application had been made to His Honour Judge Hacon at the case management conference in the action which took place in July 2019. The later application was heard by Mr Justice Birss who delivered judgment in Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and others [2020] EWHC 256 (Pat) on 10 Feb 2020. The reference to the CMC in the transcript of Mr Justice Birss’s judgment is [2009] EWHC 1982 (Pat) but I think that must be a misprint for [2019].’
NIPC Law, 22nd February 2020
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
Patents – Technetix BV v Teleste Ltd – NIPC Law
‘This was a claim for patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation on grounds of anticipation, obviousness and added matter. There was also an application for unconditional and conditional amendments to the patent. The claim and counterclaim came on before His Honour Judge Hacon sitting as a judge of the Patents Court in Technetix BV and another v Teleste Ltd [2019] EWHC 3106 (Pat) (18 Nov 2019). His Honour tried the action in May and delivered judgment on 18 Nov 2019. The learned judge held at paragraph [122] of his judgment that the patent was invalid on all three grounds .and refused the amendments though he found that the patent would have been infringed hand it been valid.’
NIPC Law, 19th November 2019
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
Vestel UK Ltd & Anor v HEVC Advance LLC & Koninklijke Philips NV – Blackstone Chambers
‘The High Court has declined jurisdiction over an abuse of dominance claim against HEVC Advance (incorporated in Delaware) and Philips (incorporated in the Netherlands).’
Blackstone Chambers, 22nd October 2019
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
Patent trial over RAND not necessary after waiver – OUT-LAW.com
‘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
Judge rejects bid to exit shorter trial scheme – Litigation Futures
‘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
The Supreme Court’s Decision on Pregabalin – NIPC Law
‘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
Supreme Court deals blow to second medical use patents – Law Society’s Gazette
‘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
MPs suggest patent law reforms to combat antimicrobial resistance – OUT-LAW.com
‘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
Repairing patented equipment – what is allowed? – Technology Law Update
‘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
The Court of Appeal considers FRAND: Unwired Planet v Huawei – NIPC Law
‘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
Patents: multiple FRAND terms possible, says UK court – OUT-LAW.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
Court of Appeal offers clarity on patent ‘standards’ – Law Society’s Gazette
‘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
Unified Patent Court: UK to be a member during Brexit transition – OUT-LAW.com
‘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
Patents: A P Racing Ltd v Alcon Components Ltd (#2) – NIPC Law
‘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
Unitary patent and Unified Patent Court reforms: state of play May 2018 – OUT-LAW.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
Obviousness – Hospira v Cubist Appeal – NIPC Law
‘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
Construction of Terms in Cross-Licensing Agreements: Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Asustek Computer Incorporation and Others – NIPC Law
‘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
