Posts

Showing posts from October, 2012

Medimmune v Novartis - Obviousness

In Medimmune Ltd v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd and Another [2011] EWHC 1669 (Pat) (05 July 2011), Mr. Justice Arnold dismissed a claim for infringement of European Patents (UK) numbers. 0,774,511 and 2,055,777 by selling a product called ranibizumab which is used for the treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration of the eye on the grounds that the patents were invalid for obviousness and that even if the claims relied upon were valid the process used by the defendants to make the product did not infringe.   In Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd v Medimmune Ltd and Another [2012] EWHC 181 (Pat) (10 Feb 2012) the same judge declared that a supplementary protection certificate granted in respect of European patent number 2,055,777 was invalid not only in the light of his earlier finding but because the certificate was was granted in respect of a product that had not been identified in the wording of the relevant claim as a product deriving from the process in question.

Medimmune…

Apple v Samsung - the Appeal

Image
On 9 July 2012 HH Judge Birss QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, held inSamsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc. [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat) that Samsung's Galaxy 10.1, 8.9 and 7.7 tablet computers did not infringe Apple Inc.'s Community design number 000181607-0001. I discussed that judgment in this blog in "Apple v Samsung - Compare and Contrast" on 28 Aug 2012. A few days afterwards in Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc (No. 2) [2012] EWHC 2049 (Pat) (18 July 2012) Judge Birss ordered Apple to display the following notice on the home page of their website and in advertisements in the national press:
"On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design 000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link [insert hyperlink]."…

Patents County Court: More on the Small Claims Track

Following on from my article "Patents County Court - the New Small Claims Track Rules" of 20 Sept I can now report that the Part 63 Practice Direction has been amended and that we now have a new "Guide to the Patents County Court Small Claims Track."

A new paragraph 32 has been added to the Part 63 Practice Direction.   It provides as follows:
"Small claims
32.1    This Practice Direction shall apply to a claim allocated to the small claims track in a patents county court to the extent provided by paragraphs 32.2 and 32.3.
32.2    The following paragraphs shall apply –
(1) in Section II, 16.1, 17.1, 17.2, 19.1, 20.1, 21.1 to 21.5, 22.1, 23.1, 24.1;
(2) in Section IV, 26.1, 26.2;
(3) in Section V, 30.1, 31.1.
32.3 No other provision in this Practice Direction shall apply." The Guide pretty well confirms what I had anticipated in my article of 20 Sept.  However, it contains two titbits of information that were new to me.   The first is that hearings will take pla…