The 30-day period to initiate mandatory arbitration proceedings against apllicants of authorization to introduce generic medicines in the market is an expiration or final term. A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law

The Court of Intellectual Property has exclusive jurisdiction to revoke patents. The mandatory arbitration court established by Law 62/2011 cannot declare the nullity of a pharmaceutical patent even if the issue is raised merely as a defence and with effects limited to the parties to the proceedings. A full summary of this case has been…

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in instituting Covered Business Method (“CBM”) review and finding several claims of a financing method patent owned by Credit Acceptance Corporation (“CAC”) to be directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled. The Board correctly rejected CAC’s…

One of the difficulties that patent owners sometimes encounter when they are planning to apply for a preliminary injunction is the dearth of evidence. A decision handed down on 23 February 2017 by Barcelona Commercial Court No. 5 may shed some light on patent owners who need additional evidence to support an application for a…

In last month’s blog about the recovery of legal costs in Belgian IP enforcement proceedings, it was announced that the Mons Court of Appeal would probably be the first Belgian court to hand down a substantive ruling on the consequences of United Video Properties / Telenet (CJEU of 28 July 2016, C-57/15). A week later,…

On April 26 2017, the Eastern High Court of Denmark gave an interesting decision in a case between Orifarm Generics A/S and Novartis A/S, who is the holder of a patent and a number of utility models regarding a transdermal patch. On August 12 2014, the Maritime and Commercial Court had found that Orifarm by…

Since Warner-Lambert successfully defended its pregabalin patent and obtained injunctions against generic market entry in Apotex Pty Ltd v Warner-Lambert Company LLC (No 2) [2016] FCA 1238 (see our coverage of the case in ‘Carving out the principles: a comparative review of the Australia and UK Lyrica cases’), the Australian Lyrica dispute has continued through…

On 24 November 2016, the Court of Appeal of Barcelona (Section 15) handed down a judgment in which it confirmed that “the interpretation of the scope of protection of a patent for the purposes of analysing its validity cannot be different from when its infringement is analysed”. The Judges also highlighted the relevance of the…

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board erroneously construed the term “aseptic” in an inter partes review (IPR) of a patent for a method of aseptically bottling sterilized food, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The Board erred in construing the term as incorporating “any applicable United States FDA standard” rather…

Most readers will be aware of the so-called “all elements” test, whereby patent infringement is normally discarded unless the allegedly infringing device or process reproduces each and every element of the claim. The “all elements” test contrasts with the so-called “essentiality” test. According to this test, there can still be infringement if an element of…