Patents: Abbott Laboratories Ltd v Medinol Ltd

Abbott Laboratories Ltd v Medinol Ltd [2010] EWHC 2865 (Pat) (12 Nov 2010) was a claim for a declaration of non-infringement and revocation of three European patents for cardiac stents and a counterclaim for infringement. The patents were derived from a US patent. The corresponding European patent had been divided into a number of divisional patents. These had been the subject of opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office. The Opposition Division had revoked two of the grants though the decision was under appeal. There had also been proceedings in respect of the same patents in Germany and the Netherlands which resulted in findings of non-infringement. There are shortly to be similar proceedings in Dublin.

The claimant attacked the patents for want of novelty and inventiveness, added matter and insufficiency. The judge, Mr. Justice Arnold, found that one of the patents had been anticipated but that the others were valid (or, in the case of one patent) would be valid. He also found that none of the patents had been infringed.

The judge applied the usual tests.
As with most patent cases the outcome hung on the construction of the specification.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Copyright in Photographs: Temple Island Collections and Creation Records

Image
In our very first NIPC newsletter which we published in June 1997 I wrote a case note on Mr. Justice Lloyd's decision in  Creation Records Ltd. and Others v News Group Newspapers Ltd   [1997] EMLR 444, [1997] EWHC Ch 370, (1997) 16 Tr LR 544. In that case Mr. Noel Gallagher of Oasis and others applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain The Sun from offering for sale and selling a poster of Oasis that featured a photo of an elaborate set that included a white Rolls Royce in a country club swimming pool. The Sun's photograph was very similar to the photograph that appeared on an Oasis album cover. The similarity arose because The Sun's photographer shot the same scene at roughly the same time and from the same angle as Mr. Gallagher's photographer but he did not reproduce any part of Oasis's print or negative. The learned judge held that the plaintiffs had no arguable case for infringement of copyright though he accepted that they had an arguable case for br
Read more

Copyright: Primary Infirngement - Copying

The right to copy a copyright work is restricted to the copyright owner by s.2 (1) and s.16 (1) (a) of the  Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 . The restriction applies to every description of copyright work though different provisions apply to different types of work (s.17 (1)). This right to restrict copying is referred to as the right of reproduction in art 9 of the Bern Convention and art 2 of the "Copyright in the Information Society" or  Copyright and Related Rights Directive  (Directive 2001/29). Literary Musical, Dramatic or Artistic Works Copying in relation to an artistic, dramatic, literary or musical work  work means reproducing the work in any material form including storing the work in any medium by electronic means. In the case of an artistic work this includes making a copy in 3 dimensions of a 2 dimensional work and the making of a copy in 3 dimensions of a 3 dimensional work. Films and Broadcasts S.17 (4) of the 1988 Act as amended  includes within the
Read more

Patents - Gilead Sciences Inc v NuCana Plc

Image
  Jane Lamber t Patents Court  (Mr Justice Meade) G ilead Sciences Inc and another NuCana PLC  [2023] EWHC 611 (Pat) (21 March 2023) This was an action by Gilead Sciences Inc. and its British subsidiary Gilead Sciences Ltd ("Gilead") for revocation of two European Patents (UK) that had been granted to NuCana Plc ("NoCana"), namely  EP 2 955 190 B1 (“EP190”)  and   EP 3 904 365 B1 (“EP365”) .  NuCana complained that Gilead's product  sofosbuvir  infringed its patents. Mr Justice Meade, who tried the action, could see no real defence to the counterclaim if the claims of the patents were valid. Grounds of Revocation Gilead sought revocation of the patents on the following grounds: Added matter in that the  Markush group definitions of the claims  of the patents are not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application; Lack of plausibility in that the Patents do not plausibly disclose any technical contribution common to substantially all the claimed
Read more