The Court ordered a twelve month stay of the injunction granted when it found one of Boston’s patents concerning a transcatheter heart valve (THV) valid and infringed by Edwards’ medical device, in order to allow for the re-training of clinicians to use non-infringing THVs. The Court also held that, even after that stay, the injunction…
The United Kingdom wants to stay in the Unitary Patent system post-Brexit. This has been confirmed in the UK’s Brexit White Paper, which was published today. According to article 151 of the paper, ‘The UK has ratified the Unified Patent Court Agreement and intends to explore staying in the Court and unitary patent system after…
On 12 July 2017, the UK Supreme Court handed down a ruling which caused a shockwave to resound across the UK patent community. For more than a decade, when addressing the issue of the construction and infringement of a patent, every practitioner would have focussed on the question prescribed by Lord Hoffmann in Kirin Amgen:…
The Supreme Court concluded that it was appropriate for it to reformulate the so-called Improver (or ‘Protocol’) questions, which provide guidance as to whether a variant is immaterial where there is no literal infringement. The significant change is the introduction of hindsight into the determination of the second question: “Would it be obvious to the…
In a case concerning two divisional patents derived from the same parent application, relating to ‘transcatheter heart valves’ or THVs, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision that one patent was invalid for lack of inventive step and the second patent was valid. The Court of Appeal also provided guidance on cross-examination of…
In a case concerning two divisional patents derived from the same parent application relating to ‘transcatheter heart valves’ or THVs, which can be introduced via a blood vessel, rather than through open heart surgery, the Court held one patent invalid for lack of inventive step, though had it been valid it would have been infringed….
The Supreme Court held that where judgment is given in an English court that a patent (English or European) is valid and infringed, and the patent is subsequently retrospectively revoked or amended (whether in England or at the EPO), the defendant is entitled to rely on the revocation or amendment on the enquiry as to…
After a decade-long hiatus, so-called Arrow declarations are now firmly back in fashion after the Court of Appeal’s judgment last year in Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Co, Ltd v Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 1. To recap, what are now known as Arrow declarations originate from the decision in Arrow Generics Ltd…
Following its denial of Actavis’ claim for declarations of non-infringement in respect of Eli Lilly’s European Patent, the Court of Appeal ruled on a number of procedural matters arising from that judgment. These included the form of order for costs of the trial and the appeal; a reduction in an interim payment made by Lilly…
by Claire Phipps-Jones On 24 April 2018, Roger Wyand QC (sitting as a deputy judge in the High Court) held that a patent belonging to Freebit was invalid and not infringed by Bose’s flexible in-ear earpieces. The key points of interest in the decision concerned construction and the fact evidence relied on in relation to…
