NIPC Law

Jane Lambert Supreme Court (Lady Hale, Lords Kerr, Sumption, Hodge and Briggs) Actavis Group PTC EHF and others v ICOS Corporation and another [2019] UKSC 15 (27 March 2019) In The Cialis Litigation - Actavis Group PTC EHF and Others v Icos Corp and Another  4 Oct 2016, I discussed Mr Justice Birss's judgment in  Actavis and others v Eli Lilly and Co [2016] EWHC 1955 (Pat) (10 Aug 2016) in which he dismissed a claim for the revocation of European patent (UK) No 1,173,181  "Compositions comprising phosphodiesterase inhibitors for the treatment of sexual dysfunction"  and held that the patent had been infringed,  His judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Lewison, Kitchin and Floyd) in   Actavis Group PTC EHF and another v Teva UK Ltd and others   [2017] EWCA Civ 1671, 159 BMLR 108, (2018) 159 BMLR 108, [2018] RPC 7 (1 Nov 2017) on the ground that the claims relied upon had been obvious.  The patentee a...

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 "Bilateral Investment Treaties: Claiming Compensation from Foreign Governments under Bilateral Investment Treaties for failing to provide adequate IP Protection"   27 July 2013 I mentioned a possible claim by the US company Eli Lilly & Co. against the Canadian government under Chapter II of the agreement between the US, Canadian and Mexican governments establishing the North America Free Trade Area ( "NAFTA" ) for compensation for the invalidation of its Canadian patents by the courts of Canada. Eli Lilly claims that the invalidation of those patents is tantamount to expropriation which is contrary to art 1110 (1) of NAFTA. Lawyers acting for Eli Lilly have now filed a notice of arbitration  demanding that their claim be referred to arbitration under art 3 of the UNCITRAL  Arbitration Rules  before a tribunal consisting of three arbitrators, one appointed by each of the parties and the third presiding member to be appointed by agreement of the appoint...

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...