NIPC Law

  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon) Tehrani v Hamilton Bonaduz AG and others   [2021] EWHC 3457 (IPEC) (22 Dec 2021) This was an action for patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation.  The patent in suit was  GB2423721B  and not GB2424721 as stated in the transcript. The invention for which the patent was granted was a “Method and apparatus for controlling a ventilator”. The patentee, Professor Tehrani, complained that the marketing of Hamilton Medical's Invellivent-ASV system infringed her patent. The suppliers of that system, Hamilton Bondauz AG and others, challenged the validity of the patent on grounds of anticipation, obviousness and insufficiency.  The action and counterclaim came on for trial before Judge Hacon on 6 and 7 July 2021. By para [117] of his judgment in Tehrani v Hamilton Bonaduz AG and others  [2021] EWHC 3457 which was delivered on 22 Dec 2021, the judge held that the patent was inval...

Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Atnold)   Allergan, Inc and another v Aspire Pharma Ltd [2019] EWHC 1085 (Pat) (3 May 2019)  Allergan Inc  is the proprietor of European patent EP1753434  for an enhanced bimatoprost ophthalmic solution which its English subsidiary, Allergan Ltd. exploits   by marketing a product containing 0.1 mg/ml (0.01%) bimatoprost for ophthalmic administration for the treatment of glaucoma under the trade mark Lumigan 01 mg/ml. Aspire Pharma Ltd and Accord Healthcare Ltd have obtained marketing authorizations to market generic versions of Lumigan 0.1 mg/ml which they do not dispute would infringe the patent. They contend that the patent is invalid on the ground of obviousness or, alternatively insufficiency. S.72 (1) of the Patents Act 1977 provides that the Patents or Intellectual Property Enterprise Court or the Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks may revoke a patent for an i...