Les Laboratoires Servier and another (Appellants) v Apotex Inc and Others (Respondents) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 29th October 2014
Category: patents
Les Laboratoires Servier and another v Apotex Inc and others – WLR Daily
Les Laboratoires Servier and another v Apotex Inc and others [2014] UKSC 55; [2014] WLR (D) 452
‘Although acts which constituted “turpitude” for the purposes of giving rise to the defence of ex turpi causa non oritur actio were not confined to criminal acts but included quasi criminal acts which engaged the public interest, civil wrongs which offended against private and not public interests did not give rise to the defence. Infringements of patent gave rise to private rights of a character no different from rights under contract or tort and there was no public policy which would give rise to a defence of ex turpi causa.’
WLR Daily, 29th October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Intellectual Property Act 2014: The New Law on Opinions – NIPC Law
‘As I indicated in How the Intellectual Property Act 2014 changes British Patent Law JD Supra 21 June 2014 s.16 of the Intellectual Property Act 2014 amends s.74A and s.74B of the Patents Act 1977 and inserts three new subsections into s.73. The upshot as explained in paragraph 4 and paragraph 5 of the IPO’s guide Expansion of the Patent Opinions Service: business guidance is that the range of questions upon which an examiner’s opinion can be obtained has been expanded and the Comptroller now has power to revoke patents which are found to be invalid.’
NIPC Law, 29th October 2014
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
Principle that profiteering from illegal acts should be prevented does not apply to patent infringements, rules Supreme Court – OUT-LAW.com
‘A legal principle designed to prevent businesses from profiteering from illegal acts does not apply if that profiteering would stem from infringing patent rights, the UK Supreme Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 30th October 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
Appeal court shows its bottle – summary judgment on patent infringement – Technology Law Update
‘It is unusual for a patent infringement case to be decided without a full trial. A judge will normally want to hear evidence from experts to understand what people working in the relevant field would have known at the time when the patent was first filed. Recent examples of this kind of analysis can be found in Virgin v Rovi (discussed here) and Teva v AstraZeneca.’
Technology Law Update, 20th October 2014
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
Speech by Lord Justice Jackson: Costs Law and Practice Conference – Judiciary of England and Wales
‘Keynote speech by Lord Justice Jackson at the Costs Law And Practice Conference on 30th September 2014.’
Judiciary of England and Wales, 30th September 2014
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
How October 1 will change your life – Daily Telegraph
‘As a number of new laws come into effect this week, we take a look at how your life will be affected.’
Daily Telegraph, 1st October 2014
Source: www.telegrpah.co.uk
The Intellectual Property Act 2014 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2014 – NIPC Law
‘On 14 May 2014 the Intellectual Property Bill received royal assent. The Act made some far reaching changes in patents, registered design and unregistered design right law which I summarized in “Reflections on the Intellectual Property Act 2014” 7 June 2014 4-5 IP Tech and discussed in detail in “How the Intellectual Property Act 2014 changes British Patent Law” 21 June 2014 JD Supra, “How the Intellectual Property Act 2014 changes British Registered Design Law” 19 June 2014 JD Supra and “How the Intellectual Property Act 2014 will change British Unregistered Design Right Law” 11 June 2014 JD Supra 11 June 2014. On 28 Aug 2014 Lady Neville-Rolfe, Minister for Intellectual Property, signed The Intellectual Property Act 2014 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2014 which will bring many of the provisions of the Act into force.’
NIPC Law, 6th September 2014
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
Patents – Employees’ Compensation: Shanks v Unilever – NIPC Law
‘S.39 (1) of the Patents Act 1977 provides:
“Notwithstanding anything in any rule of law, an invention made by an employee shall, as between him and his employer, be taken to belong to his employer for the purposes of this Act and all other purposes if –
(a) it was made in the course of the normal duties of the employee or in the course of duties falling outside his normal duties, but specifically assigned to him, and the circumstances in either case were such that an invention might reasonably be expected to result from the carrying out of his duties; or
(b) the invention was made in the course of the duties of the employee and, at the time of making the invention, because of the nature of his duties and the particular responsibilities arising from the nature of
his duties he had a special obligation to further the interests of the employer’s undertaking.”‘
NIPC Law, 2nd July 2014
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
Unified Patent Court Consultation – NIPC Law
‘As I said in How the Intellectual Property Act 2014 changes British Patent Law 21 June 2014 JD Supra, the most important provision of the Intellectual Property Act 2014 is s.17 which inserts a new s.88A into the Patents Act 1977. That section confers power on the Secretary of State to make provision in the UK for the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court.’
NIPC Law, 25th June 2014
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
Shanks v Unilever plc and others (No 2) – WLR Daily
Shanks v Unilever plc and others (No 2) [2014] EWHC 1647 (Pat); [2014] WLR (D) 242
‘The time value of money received by an employer following the vesting of an invention by an employee was not a benefit derived by the employer for the purposes of section 41(1) of the Patents Act 1977.’
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Intellectual property law – achieving a balance between the right to enforce and protecting innovation – Law Commission
‘Patents, trade marks and design rights are valuable intellectual property (IP) rights and vital to economic growth. They ensure that research and innovation is encouraged and rewarded. And, for some small businesses, they can represent their most significant assets. The law provides effective ways to enforce IP rights but these can be misused to drive competitors from the market. In a report published today, the Law Commission is recommending reforms that will allow individuals and businesses to protect their IP rights but not at the expense of new ideas and inventions.’
Law Commission, 15th April 2014
Source: www.justice.gov.uk/lawcommission
Intellectual Property in the UK and Europe – Speech by Lord Neuberger
Intellectual Property in the UK and Europe (PDF)
Speech by Lord Neuberger
Burrell Lecture for the Competition Law, 1st April 2014
Source: www.supremecourt.uk
Equitable Interests in Patents and Patent Applications – NIPC Law
‘In Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Others [2007] Bus LR 1796, [2007] BusLR 1796, [2008] 1 All ER 425, [2007] UKHL 43 Lord Hoffmann described s.7 (2) and (3) of the Patents Act 1977 as “an exhaustive code for determining who is entitled to the grant of a patent.”‘
NIPC Law, 10th April 2014
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
Delay to the operation of new unified patent court – OUT-LAW.com
‘A new court system that is being set up to handle disputes about unitary patents may not be operational until 2016, the group established to deliver the new system has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 24th March 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
SPCs – unhealthy combinations of new cases – Technology Law Update
‘The Supplementary Protection Certificate. A marvellous little device for giving back to a patent owner the lost years during which it has been obtaining regulatory approval for its products in those heavily regulated areas: pharmaceuticals and plant protection products. You simply extend the patent by the number of years that the product has spent caught up in the approval process, and there you are. A gain of up to five valuable years on the end of your patent in the prime of the product’s life.’
Technology Law Update, 26th February 2014
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Jet Airways (India) Ltd and others (Controller General of Patents and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills intervening); Zodiac Seats UK Ltd (formerly Contour Aerospace Ltd) v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd (Controller General of Patents and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills intervening) – WLR Daily
‘The English Patents Court had no jurisdiction to review or investigate the decision of European Patent Office (EPO) to register a patent on an application under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, since the United Kingdom’s sovereign power in relation to that issue had been surrendered to the EPO under the European Patent Convention (EPC).’
WLR Daily, 20th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Actavis Group PTC EHF and another v Sanofi (Sanofi Pharma Bristol-Myers Squibb SNC intervening) – WLR Daily
‘Where, on the basis of a patent protecting an innovative active ingredient and a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product containing that ingredient as the single active ingredient, the holder of that patent had already obtained a supplementary protection certificate (“SPC”) for that active ingredient entitling him to oppose the use of that active ingredient, either alone or in combination with other active ingredients, article 3(c) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 precluded that patent holder from obtaining—on the basis of that same patent but a subsequent marketing authorisation (“MA”) for a different medicinal product containing that active ingredient in conjunction with another active ingredient which was not protected as such by the patent— a second supplementary protection certificate relating to that combination of active ingredients.’
WLR Daily, 12th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Eli Lilly and Co Ltd v Human Genome Sciences Inc – WLR Daily
Eli Lilly and Co Ltd v Human Genome Sciences Inc (Case C-493/12); [2013] WLR (D) 489
‘Pursuant to article 3(a) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 469/2009, in order for an active ingredient to be regarded as “protected by a basic patent in force” within the meaning of that provision, it was not necessary for the active ingredient to be identified in the claims of the patent by a structural formula. Where the active ingredient was covered by a functional formula in the claims of a patent issued by the European Patents Office (“the EPO”), article 3(a) of that Regulation did not, in principle, preclude the grant of a supplementary protection certificate for that active ingredient, on condition that it was possible to reach the conclusion that the claims related, implicitly but necessarily and specifically, to the active ingredient in question.’
WLR Daily, 12th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
