In IPCom GmbH & Co KG v HTC Europe Co Limited and others  EWCA Civ 1496, the English Court of Appeal has very recently given guidance concerning the circumstances in which it is appropriate for an English court considering combined patent infringement and revocation proceedings to stay those proceedings pending the outcome of co-pending opposition proceedings at the EPO. There has long been a question mark as to whether national courts should proceed with a patent dispute in such cases. If a national court does proceed then this brings the risk of inconsistent decisions. As the EPO ultimately trumps national courts on questions of validity, speedier national proceedings can be underm [...]
In my August post reported here, I mentioned that the skirmish between Resolution and Lundbeck regarding the validity of Lundbeck’s SPC for escitalopram is scheduled to be heard in the English Patents Court next month. Readers may recall that Arnold J dismissed Lundbeck’s application for summary judgment and that the Court of Appeal upheld his decision that previous challenges to the patent did not preclude Resolution from bringing the action. However, on 15 October 2013, Arnold J had to hear some further submissions from the parties – this time a somewhat unusual application by Lundbeck that Arnold J should “recuse” himself from hearing the trial in this action. Here’s the story [...]
In 2008, the English Court of Appeal in Glaxo Group v Genentech ( EWCA Civ 23) gave general guidance on the Patent’s Court discretion to stay legal proceedings on the ground that there are parallel proceedings pending at the European Patent Office concerning the validity of a patent. The “nine step” guidance given by Lord Justice Mummery in that case has been followed in various cases and most recently it was applied by Mr Justice Roth in IPCom v HTC Europe and others ( EWHC 2880), the latest battle in protracted litigation concerning a patent used in mobile phones. In applying the Glaxo v Genentech guidance, Mr Justice Roth refused to stay the technical issues of invalid [...]
In my previous post of 2 August 2013 I made passing reference to the recent decision of the English Court of Appeal in the Copaxone litigation. This case was an appeal of the decision of Arnold J (previously reported here) where he found Yeda’s patent valid and infringed. With permission of the court, Mylan appealed that decision.
Yeda is the registered proprietor (and Teva is the exclusive licensee) of EP (UK) 0 762 888 (the “Patent”) relating to a synthetic copolymer known as copolymer-1. Teva markets a product containing copolymer-1 under the brand name Copaxone, which is used for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (the most common [...]
The final week in July is always a busy time in the English Courts as Judges try to hand down judgments before the commencement of the summer vacation which lasts approximately two months.
2013 was no exception with three important patent decisions being given this week– two from the Court of Appeal on the same day.
One of the Court of Appeal decisions was a unanimous finding that a patent owned by Yeda and licensed to Teva for the medicine Copaxone was valid. The second decision, which is the subject of this short piece, concerned an attempt by Lundbeck to preclude a generics company, Resolution from challenging Lundbeck’s patent to escitalopram, an anti-depressant sold very successf [...]
It could be argued that 2013 is proving to be somewhat unkind to UK patentees when it comes to the issues of sufficiency and priority. On 25 June 2013, in a typically comprehensive judgment running to some 90 pages, Arnold J held that Janssen’s patent was invalid for insufficiency.
The relevant facts were as follows: Janssen is the owner of EP (UK) 1 994 937 (the “Patent”) entitled “Prevention and treatment of amyloidogenic disease”. The Patent discloses and claims pharmaceutical compositions comprising an antibody to β-amyloid peptide (a type of protein plaque that builds up in Alzheimer’s disease patients’ brains – the theory being that an antibody to β-amyloid peptide mi [...]