The Court held that a decision by the EPO relating to the UK designation was not capable of challenge. In any event, the procedure chosen by the claimant to challenge the decision (an application to correct the UKIPO register based on Rule 50 of the Patents Rules 2007) was wrong, because it required the consent of the claimant (which would clearly not have been forthcoming). An application for rectification of the Register under section 34 Patents Act 1977 should have been used.
Click here for the full text of this case.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com
[...]Liversidge v (1) Owen Mumford Limited (2) Abbott Laboratories Limited
In April 2011, the claimant commenced patent infringement proceedings in the UK Patents County Court (“PCC”) against the defendants in respect of European Patent No. 2067496 entitled “Medical Injector”. The defendants denied infringement and counterclaimed invalidity.
Background
The claimant filed a patent application for a safety arrangement for a medical needle in June 2003. It was for a normal (non-autoinjector) syringe and all of the disclosure and claims related to the safety arrangement. In 2006, the second defendant launched the Humira Pen in the UK (an autoinjector delivery syringe containing the Humira [...]
The Court cited the parallel proceedings between the parties in the United Kingdom, where the approach of the EPO Board of Appeal in T331/87 Houdaille/Removal of Feature [1991] EPOR 194 was applied, and concluded that the changes in the patent amount to added matter.
Click here for the full text of this case.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com
[...]Fairly recent case law of the EPO suggests that the concept of individualized disclosure may reach further than many people think. This can have severe implications for the validity of patents and patent applications, especially in the field of chemistry and life sciences. In the following these decisions and their potential consequences are analyzed and some recommendations are given.
The concept of individualization, i.e. singling out a specific embodiment from a generic disclosure, in various instances is a key concept of the EPO for assessing the “quality” of disclosures. It is applied in the examination of novelty of selection inventions. If the features of the claim characterize an [...]
Last April we reported the case of Gedeon Richter plc v Bayer Schering Pharma AG [2011] EWHC 583 (Pat), concerning immediate release formulations of a combination contraceptive product containing the steroidal hormones drospirenone and ethinylestradiol. We can now report the decision of the Court of Appeal in this case (handed down on 7 March 2012) where the court has clarified the test to be applied when evaluating patent amendment on the grounds of added subject matter. The court has also given guidance on the test for obviousness in circumstances where it is argued that the invention covered by the patent would have been “obvious to try”.
But first, a quick recap of the facts of the c [...]
Litigation and EPO Oppositions/Appeals surrounding a controlled-release dosage form of the drug oxycodone, a morphine-like opioid analgesic developed in 1918, has kept Europe’s Pharma IP Lawyers busy for a couple of years. One of the key EP patents in this battle has been EP 722 730, and almost everything about this patent is out of the ordinary. The patent is owned by no less than 13 separate companies from the Purdue Pharma/Napp/Mundipharma group. It is the first divisional application of EP 576 643 and itself forms the parent application of no less than 13 further divisionals and grand-divisionals, according to epoline. It is distinguished from its parent application by a disclaimer which [...]
