NIPC Law

  Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Arnold and Stuart-Smith and Lady Justice Falk)  Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and another v Astellas Pharma Inc [2023] EWCA Civ 880 (25 July 2023) This was an appeal against the dismissal of the claim by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Teva UK Ltd. ("Teva") for revocation of  European Patent (UK) 1 559 427 B1  for a "Remedy for overactive bladder comprising acetic acid anilide derivative as the active ingredient" and Supplementary Protection Certificate No. SPC/GB13/035  and judgment on a counterclaim by Astellas Pharma Inc. ("Astellas") for infringement (see Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v Astellas Pharma Inc . [2022] EWHC 1316 (Pat) (1 June 2022), It came on before Lords Justices Arnold and Sturt-Smith and Lady Justice Falk on 17 and 18 July 2023.  Judgment was handed down on 25 July 2023.  By a unanimous judgment the Court dismissed the appeal (see  Teva Pharmaceutical Industr...

Skeletal Formula of Daptomycin Author  Fvasconcellos Licence copyright waived by the author Wikipedia Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Lewison and Kitchin)  Hospira UK Ltd v Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC [2018] EWCA Civ 12 (18 Jan  2018) Daptomycin is an antibiotic used to treat systemic and life-threatening infections caused by multiple drug resistant bacteria. Its effectiveness depends on its purity. The invention for which the patent in suit was  granted was a way of purifying the antibiotic. In Hospira UK Ltd v Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC [2016] EWHC 1285 (Pat) (10 June 2016),  Hospira UK Ltd , (a British subsidiary of Pfizer) sought the revocation of that patent.  Mr Justice Henry Carr found that the patent was invalid and ordered its revocation. Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC  (a subsidiary of Merck & Co.) appealed against that judgment and order in Hospira UK Ltd v Cub...

In his speech in C onor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc and others [2008] UKHL 49 (9 July 2008) Lord Neuberger opined that the House of Lords decision represented " a significant development in United Kingdom patent law" but I am not sure that is true. Certainly he was right to say that the Lords differed from the views of highly experienced patent judges (Mr Justice Pumfrey at first instance and Lord Justice Jacob in the Court of Appeal) but my surprise having read Lord Hoffmann's speech is that anyone was surprised.  Of course, I say that with the benefit of hindsight but I think I would have reached the same conclusion had I seen the paragraph of counsel's skeleton argument that appears to have led the trial judge and appeal court into error. The paragraph submitted that the inventive concept was not what claim 1 of the patent claimed, namely: "A stent for expanding the lumen of a body passageway, comprising a generally tubular structure coate...