Menu
Browse Options
Swiss-Form Claims, Skinny Labelling and the duty of the National Health Service – the Lyrica case continues

By Claire Phipps-Jones and Brian Cordery

At the end of January, we reported the Warner-Lambert v Actavis decision of 21 January 2015, in which Arnold J refused to grant Warner-Lambert interim relief in relation to an apprehension of patent infringement by Actavis of Warner-Lambert’s patent comprising Swiss-form claims directed to the use of pregabalin in the preparation of a medicament for the treatment of pain. The apprehended patent infringement pertained to Actavis’ generic pregabalin medicine. Actavis had carved-out pain indications from the label for its medicine but it was nevertheless foreseeable that some of these medicines would be dispensed and used for pain in the UK.

The ju [...]

Reform of UK Provisions on Groundless Threats of Patent Infringement

In August 2013, I produced a short commentary for the Kluwer Patent Blog regarding the decision of Mr Recorder Meade QC in SDL Hair Ltd v Next Row Ltd & Ors [2013] EWPCC 31, where Mr Meade was faced with the question of whether two letters and one email constituted groundless threats of patent infringement under s.70 of the UK’s 1977 Patents Act (“the Act”).  (http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2013/08/28/drawing-the-line-between-a-threat-of-infringement-proceedings-and-providing-factual-information/)

In that post, as well as summarising the decision on that issue, I also provided a very short background to the cause of action created by s.70 whereby a person (whether or not the proprietor o [...]

Swiss Form Claims and Skinny Labelling – the Lyrica Case

Most readers will know that so-called Swiss form claims (“Use of drug X in the manufacture of a medicament for the treatment of disease Y”) were first proposed by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO in the EISAI case back in December 1984 to allow new uses for known drugs to be patented. This area is of considerable importance, because, as was set out in the resolution of AIPPI on this issue passed at the Toronto congress in September 2014: “Second medical uses may provide solutions to unmet medical needs and provide significant benefits to patients. They may require significant investment in research and development and represent socially, medically and economically valuable [...]

Abuse of Process – Patentee does not have to assert all known means of infringement

A decision from Mr Justice Birss in Adaptive Spectrum And Signal Alignment Inc v British Telecommunications Plc [2014] EWHC 4194 has introduced additional complications for parties found to infringe a patent who then seek to work around the same. In essence that party cannot simply sit back and assume that the only feature to address is that which was successfully attacked by the patentee.  Instead that party must now consider whether their product or system might infringe in other ways (and work around the same as well).

The judgment stems from an infringement action brought by Adaptive Spectrum And Signal Alignment Inc. (ASSIA) against BT for infringement of two of its patents.  BT’s [...]

Herceptin Round 2: Hospira enjoys the sweet smell of success once more

By Brian Cordery and Steven Willis

Regular readers of the Kluwer patent blog may recall that in April 2014, the English Patents Court revoked two patents relating to trastuzumab, the active ingredient in Herceptin, which is marketed outside of the US by Roche. One patent was for a dosage regimen and the other related to a composition of trastuzumab containing certain levels of impurities. The SPC for trastuzumab itself subsequently expired in July 2014, but as yet, Hospira has not launched its competing medicine in the UK. As part of its campaign to clear the way for launch, Hospira challenged two further related divisional patents – this time relating to lyophilised formulations of tra [...]

UKIPO gains new powers to revoke patents which fail a novelty or obviousness test – but only if ‘clearly invalid’

by Dr Mark A G Jones

The UK’s Intellectual Property Act 2014, enacted to implement recommendations of the 2011 Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property, has extended the powers available to the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) to revoke British patents of its own motion. This applies both to patents granted directly by the UKIPO or patents obtained through the EPO route. The new statutory provisions are contained in Section 73 of the Patents Act 1977, as amended.

The new power, available from 1 October, 2014, allows the UKIPO to revoke a patent for lack of novelty or lack of inventive step where a third party has sought an Opinion from the UKIPO Opinions Service as to [...]

Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...