NIPC Law

  Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Abbott Laboratories Ltd v Dexcom In c. [2021] EWHC 2246 (Pat) (6 Aug 2021) This was an application for an order to expedite the trial of an action that Abbott Laboratories Ltd. ("Abbott") had begun 2 days earlier against Dexcom Inc ("Dexcom") for the revocation of 4 of Dexcom Inc's European patents. The reason for the action and application is that Dexcom had brought proceedings for the infringement of those patents in Germany.  The trials of those actions were likely to take place between early March and the end of April 2022. In Germany, unlike the United Kingdom, it is not possible to challenge the validity of a patent in infringement proceedings.  Alleged infringers who wish to challenge the validity of the patent they are alleged to have infringed must bring opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office under art 99 of the European Patent Convention or start separate revocation proceedings in Germany....

Houses of Parliament Source Wikipedia Jane Lambert The action arising from groundless threats has been one of the most perplexing features of our  intellectual property law  both for foreign owners of IPR in this country and their legal advisors (see Prince Plc v Prince Sports Group Inc [1998] FSR 21) and even non-specialist lawyers in the United Kingdom (see Brain v Ingeledew Brown Benson and Garrett and another  [1996] FSR 341). Under s.70 of the Patents Act 1977  and similar provisions in other IP legislation, a letter threatening proceedings that would be quite acceptable in most countries and even in the UK in respect of most other causes of action can land the lawyer or attorney who wrote it, and the client on whose behalf the letter was written, in a whole heap of trouble that sometimes results in an infringer getting away with his or her wrongdoing. S.70 (1) provides: "Where a person (whether or not the proprietor of, or entitled ...