NIPC Law

Jane Lambert Patents Court  (HH Judge Hacon)  Philip Morris Products SA and another v Nicoventures Trading Ltd and another  [2023] EWHC 2616 (Pat) (25 Oct 2023) This was a claim by Philip Morris Products SA and Philip Morris Limited ("PMI") for the revocation of European patent (UK) 3 367 830 B1  ("EP830") and a counterclaim by Nicoventures Trading Limited and British American Tobacco (Investments)  Limited ("BAT") for the infringement of that patent.  There was also an application by BAT to amend the patent and an application by PMI for an Arrow declaration. These proceedings came on for trial before His Honour Judge Hacon sitting as a judge of the High Court between 21 and 23 and on 27 and 28 Sept, 2023.  The learned judge delivered judgment on 25 Ocr 2023 (see  Philip Morris Products SA and another v Nicoventures Trading Ltd and another [2023] EWHC 2616 (Pat) (25 Oct 2023)). By para [216] of his judgment he dismissed the counterclaim....

Author   Dfrg.msc   Public Domain Source  Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Arnold and Nugee and Sir Christopher Floyd) Teva UK Ltd and another v Novartis AG    [2022] EWCA Civ 1617 (8 Dec 2022) This was an appeal against Mrs Justice Bacon's refusal to grant an Arrow declaration in  Teva UK Ltd and another v Novartis AG [2022] EWHC 2779 (Ch) (19 Oct 2022). Lord Justice Arnold defined an Arrow declaration as "a declaration that a product, process or use was lacking in novelty or obvious as at the priority date of a patent application" at para [17] of his judgment in  Teva UK Ltd and another v Novartis AG [2022] EWCA Civ 1617.  He explained that Arrow declarations take their name from the seminal decision of Kitchin J (as he then was) in Arrow Generics Ltd v Merck & Co Inc [2007] EWHC 1900 (Pat), [2008] Bus LR 487.  He continued:   "The point of such declaration is that it is in eff...