NIPC Law

Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus Author NIAID   Licence CC BY 2.0   Source    Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor)  Pfizer Ltd v GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA and another 2024] EWHC 2523 (Pat) (07 Oct 202 4) Pfizer Ltd v GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA and anothe r [2025] EWHC 52 (Pat) (16 Jan 2025) This was a claim by Pfizer Ltd. ("Pfizer")  for the revocation of  EP (UK) 3 109 258 ("258") and EP (UK) 2 222 710 ("710")  under s.72 (1) (a)  of the Patents Act 1977 on the grounds that the inventions for which those patents were granted were not patentable.  The patents were held by  GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA  and  ID Biomedical Corporation of Quebec  (collectively "GSK").   The reason for the litigation was that both Pfizer and GSK had developed vaccines for respiratory syncytial virus ("RSV")  that were about to receive marketing approval in the UK....

Author Dfrg.msc   Public Domain Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents are intended to promote innovation but occasionally they work against the public interest.  For instance, the term of a pharmaceutical patent that is about to expire may effectively be prolonged by a patent for a new dosing regime or a second medical use.  Sometimes the patents for such inventions may be revoked  or a  declaration of non-infringement  may be granted  A company that wants to launch a competing product will often bring revocation or non-infringement proceedings to clear the way for the launch. However, s.69 (2) of the Patents Act 1977 makes clear that such proceedings can be brought only after a patent has been granted.   There is a risk in launching a new product while a patent application is being considered because  s.69 (1).  allows a claim for damages to be backdated to the publication of the application.   That can b...

Autho r: User:Drgd.msc Licence:   Copyright waived by the owner Source: Wikipedia Arrow   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss) Pfizer Ltd v F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and another [2019] EWHC 1520 (Pat) (20 June 2019) An " Arrow declaration" is a declaration that a product or process was known or obvious at a particular date and therefore could not fall within the claims of a patent.  It takes its name from the decision of Mr Justicce Kitchin as he then was in  Arrow Generics Ltd and another v Merck & Co ,  [2007] FSR 39, [2007] EWHC 1900 (Pat), [2008] Bus LR 487 where his lordship refused to strike out an application for such a declaration. The purpose of Arrow declarations is to determine in advance issues that might prevent or delay a  competitor from entering a market immediately after a monopoly is due to come to an end.  Thus, in Arrow, the launch of a competing product was threatened by the revival of several...

Autho r Ac dx Source Wikipedia Creative Commons Licence Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) v Warner-Lambert Company LLC   [2016] EWCA Civ 1006 (13 Oct 2016) This was an appeal against two of Mr Justice Arnold's judgments. The first was his decision in  Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) v Warner-Lambert Company LLC   [2015] EWHC 2548 (Pat) which I discussed in  The Pregabalin Trial: Generics (UK) Ltd v Warner-Lambert Company LLC   18 Sept 2015. The second was his refusal to allow Warner-Lambert to amend certain claims of its patent after trial in    Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) v Warner-Lambert Company LLC [2015] EWHC 3370 (Pat) on the ground that the application was an abuse of the process of the court. The Issues Lord Justice Floyd, who delivered the lead judgment on the appeal, identified the issues before the Court of Appeal as follows in the first paragraph of his judgment: "Firstly, did Arnold J correctly hold certain claims of...