NIPC Law

Jane Lambert In anticipation of our departure from the European Union. Her Majesty's government and businesses in the United Kingdom have been exploring the possibility of developing new markets for British goods and services overseas. Only this week, the Prime Minister visited Saudi Arabia and Jordan (see  Prime Minister's visit to Saudi Arabia and Jordan: April 2017   4 April 2017 HMG's website) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in India as part of the 9th UK-India Economic and Financial Dialogue (see  UK-India economic and trade relations to take centre stage on two-day visit   4 April 2017 HMG's website). One of the advantages of trading within the EU is that the legal systems of the member states have been harmonized over the years and supplemented with a growing body of Union law. This is as true of intellectual property  as of everything else with the result that the legal protection of intellectual assets  in any of the...

I mentioned Eli Lilly's claim against Canada for compensation under art 1110  of the North American Free Trade Agreement ( "NAFTA" ) in  Bilateral Investment Treaties: Claiming Compensation from Foreign Governments under Bilateral Investment Treaties for failing to provide adequate IP Protection   27 July 2013 and  Bilateral Investment Treaties: Eli Lilly and Co. v Government of Canada   2 Jan 2014 as well as my article  " Bilateral Investment Treaties: A Remedy for SME? " which was published in Issue 12 of Volume 35 of the European Intellectual Property Review on page 759. Following Eli Lilly's Notice of Arbitration   which I mentioned in January the parties appointed Professor Albert Jan van den Berg , Mr Gary Born and  Sir Daniel Bethlehem KCMG, QC  as arbitrators. Eli Lilly designated its Notice of Arbitration as its statement of claim by a letter from its lawyers dated 14 May 2014.  The arbitrators have made ...

In Novopharm Ltd v. Eli Lilly & Co 2010 FC 915 Mr. Justice Barnes of the Federal Court of Canada declared that Canadian patent no. 2,209,735 for the second medical use of the drug atomoxetine to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults was invalid for inutility. His judgment was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal in Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Canada Ltd 2011 FCA 220. Eli Lilly & Co. applied for leave to appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court but that was refused on 8 Dec 2012. Similarly, in Eli Lilly Canada Inc. and Others v Novopharm Ltd 2011 FC 1288 Mr. Justice O'Reilly threw out Eli Lilly's claim against Novopharm for infringement of its Canadian patent no. 2,041,113 for olanzapine on the ground of invalidity. Again, Eli Lilly appealed but the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the court below in Eli Lilly Canada Inc v Novopharm Limited, 2012 FCA 232. Again, Eli Lilly sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and, again, it was refused. E...