Posts

Showing posts from 2020

Bayer v NHS Darlington Appeal

Image
Jane Lambert

Court of Appeal (Lords Justice Underhill and Floyd and Lady Justice Rose) Bayer Plc and Another v NHS Darlington Clinical Commissioning Group and others[2020] EWCA Civ 449 (25 March 2020)

This was an appeal by Bayer Plc and Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited against Mrs Justice Whipple's judgment in Bayer Plc v NHS Darlington Clinical Commissioning Groups and others: [2019] PTSR 922, [2018] WLR(D) 589, [2018] EWHC 2465 (Admin) which I blogged in Bayer Plc v NHS Darlington CCG and Others2 Oct 2018. In her judgment, Mrs Justice Whipple dismissed applications for judicial review by Bayer and Novartis of a decision by NHS Darlington and other Clinical Commissioning Groups in Northeast England that the NHS Trusts from which they commission services should use a drug called Avastin as the preferred treatment option for an eye disease generally referred to as wet age-related macular degeneration ("WAMD").

I set out the reason for the CCGs' decision in my case n…

Arrow Declarations - Mexichem UK Ltd v Honeywell International Inc

Image
Jane Lambert

Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Floyd and Lewison) Mexichem UK Limited v Honeywell International Inc. [2020] EWCA Civ 473 (1 April 2020)

This was an appeal by the defendant company against Judge Hacon's refusal in Mexichem UK Ltd v Honeywell International Inc, 2019 WL 06877912 (2019) to strike out, or grant summary judgment in respect of, the claimant's application for an Arrow declaration. In Missed! Arrow Declarations - Pfizer v Hoffmann La Roche 5 Aug 2019 I described an "Arrow declaration" as "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." They take their name from the judgment in Arrow Generics Ltd and another v Merck & Co, Inc [2008] Bus LR 487, [2007] FSR 39, [2007] EWHC 1900 (Pat) but they derive from the much older "squeeze" case of Gillette Safety Razor Co v Anglo-American Trading Co Ltd. (1913) 30 RPC 465.

The order that th…

Supplementary Protection Certificates - the Genentech Appeals

Image
Jane Lambert

Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Floyd and Arnold and Lady Justice Nichola Davies) Genentech Inc v Comptroller and Master Data Center v Comptroller[2020] EWCA Civ 475 (31 March 2020)

These were appeals from the decision of Mr Recorder Campbell QC in Master Data Center, Inc v Comptroller [2020] EWHC 572 (Pat) (11 March 2020) which I blogged in Supplementary Protection Certificates - Master Data Center, Inc v The Comptrolleron18 March 2020.  The cases are remarkable for the speed with which they progressed from the hearing officer to the Court of Appeal.  They were before Mr  Micklewright on 21 Feb 2020 (see Re Genentech, Inc. and Master Data Center, Inc. BL O/111/20 21 Feb 2020), Mr Campbell on 4 March 2020 and the Court of Appeal on 26 of that month (Genentech Inc v Comptroller and Master Data Center v Comptroller [2020] EWCA Civ 475 (31 March 2020).   The cases are also remarkable for being heard entirely online in accordance with Practice Direction 51Y with a media repres…

Passing off and Copyright Infringement - Shua Ltd. v Camp and Furnace Ltd.

Image
Standard YouTube Licence

Jane Lambert

Chancery Division  (HH Judge Halliwell) Shua Ltd v Camp and Furnace Ltd [2020] EWHC 687 (Ch) (24 March 2020)

This was a trial of preliminary issues in a passing off and copyright infringement action that had been brought by Shua Limited ("Shua") against one of its shareholders, Camp and Furnace Ltd. ("Camp") and unfair prejudice proceedings that Camp has launched against Shua, its director and shareholder Joshua Burke ("Mr Burke") and his fellow shareholder Jonathan Lacey ("Mr Lacey").

The Passing off Claim
Shua offers an entertainment called Bongo's Bingo,  That appears from the above promotional video to be a combination of bingo and disco.  "Bingo" is described by Wikipedia as "a game of probability in which players mark off numbers on cards as the numbers are drawn randomly by a caller, the winner being the first person to mark off all their numbers."  Having played the game once las…

Patents - Evalve Inc. and Others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd. #2

Image
Jane Lambert

Patents Court (Mr Justice Birrs) Evalve Inc and others  v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd (#2) [2020] EWHC 513 (Pat) (12 March 2020)

A month after their trial before Mr Justice Birss in Evalve Inc and others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd (#1) [2020] EWHC 514 (Pat) (12 March 2020 and nearly two months before they know who had won, the parties found themselves back in the Rolls Building which I blogged in Patents - Evalve Inc. and Others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd (#1)29 March 2020 for a further trial before the same judge. The issue in the second trial was whether Edwards Lifesciences Ltd. should be injuncted and, if so, on what terms should it lose the patent action.  In his judgment in Evalve Inc and Others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd (#2) [2020] EWHC 513 (Pat) (12 March 2020) which he delivered the same day as his judgment in the patent action, Mr Justice Birss referred to it as "the public interest trial".

The reason why it was referred to by that name is that there wer…

Patents - Evalve Inc. and Others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd. #1

Image
Jane Lambert

Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss) Evalve Inc and others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd [2020] EWHC 514 (Pat) (12 March 2020)

This was a patent infringement action. The patents alleged to have been infringed were EP (UK) 1 408 850 entitled "Devices for capturing and fixing leaflets in valve repair" ("850") and EP (UK) 1 624 810 entitled "Fixation devices and systems for engaging tissue" ("810")  The claimants, who were the patentee, exclusive licensee and exclusive licensee respectively, complained that the defendant company had infringed those patents.  The defendant denied infringement and contended that the patents were invalid.  The 850 on grounds of obviousness and added matter.  The 810 on the basis of anticipation and obviousness. The action came on for trial before Mr Jusiice Birss between 9 and 13 and 17 and 18 Dec 2019. His lordship gave judgment in favour of the claimants on 12 March 2020 (see Evalve Inc and others v Edwards Lif…