NIPC Law

Omalizumab structure Authors  Manav Segal, Jeffrey R Stokes, Thomas B. Casale Licence CC BY 2,5 Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Patents Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Celltrion Inc v Genentech, Inc and another [2025] EWHC 174 (Pat) (30 Jan 2025)   This was an action by Celltrion Inc ("Celltrion") for the revocation of European patent (UK)  3 805 248 B1  for a "Process for concentration of antibodies and therapeutic products thereof" ("the patent") held by Genentech Inc ("Genentech") and Novartis AG ("Novartis") and a counterclaim by Genentech and Novartis against Celltrion and its UK subsidiary for infringement.  The action and counterclaim were tried by His Honour Judge Hacon between 24 Oct 2024 and 1 Nov 2024.  The learned judge delivered judgment on 30 Jan 2025 (see  Celltrion Inc v Genentech, Inc and another  [2025] EWHC 174 (Pat) (30 Jan 2025)).  By para [193] of his judgment, he found that the patent was valid and infringed. Th...

Author   Dfrg.msc   Public Domain Source  Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Arnold and Nugee and Sir Christopher Floyd) Teva UK Ltd and another v Novartis AG    [2022] EWCA Civ 1617 (8 Dec 2022) This was an appeal against Mrs Justice Bacon's refusal to grant an Arrow declaration in  Teva UK Ltd and another v Novartis AG [2022] EWHC 2779 (Ch) (19 Oct 2022). Lord Justice Arnold defined an Arrow declaration as "a declaration that a product, process or use was lacking in novelty or obvious as at the priority date of a patent application" at para [17] of his judgment in  Teva UK Ltd and another v Novartis AG [2022] EWCA Civ 1617.  He explained that Arrow declarations take their name from the seminal decision of Kitchin J (as he then was) in Arrow Generics Ltd v Merck & Co Inc [2007] EWHC 1900 (Pat), [2008] Bus LR 487.  He continued:   "The point of such declaration is that it is in eff...

Author Amir.ahrls   Licence CCO 1.0   Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Roth) Novartis AF and another v Reva UK Ltd and others   [2022] WLR(D) 306, [2022] EWHC 959 (Ch) Can an applicant for a patent or other intellectual property right seek an interim injunction to restrain an act that would infringe such right in the interval between the removal of the last objection to the granting of the right and the date of grant?  The right to damages for infringing acts is backdated to the publication of the application by s.69 (1) of the Patents Act 1977 but s.69 (2) (a) entitles an applicant to bring proceedings by virtue of this section in respect of any act only after the patent has been granted.  S.9 (3) (a) of the Trade Marks Act 1949  provides that no infringement proceedings may be begun before the date on which the trade mark is in fact registered.  S.7A (6) of the Registered Designs Act 1949 makes clear that no proce...

Author   Hellerhoff   Licence  CC BY-SA 3,0 Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss ) Evalve Inc and others v Edwards Lifesciences Lt d [2020] EWHC 1524 (Pat) (18 June 2020) In    Evalve Inc and others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd #1 [ 2020] EWHC 514 (Pat) (12 March 2020)). Mr Justce Birss held that two patents that protected the market for a device known as the MitraClip were valid and infringed.   In  E valve Inc and others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd (#2) [2020] EWHC 513 (Pat) (12 March 2020) Mr Justice Birss rejected the defendant's contention that it should be allowed to market its product notwithstanding the judgment on the ground that some patients were assisted by a product that competed with the MitraClip but not by the MitraClip itself. I blogged about those cases in   Patents - Evalve Inc. and Others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd. #1   27 March 2020 NIPC Law and Patents - Evalve Inc. and Others v Edwa...

According to Wikipedia ,  Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, is the world's largest information technology company in terms of revenue. Apple Inc . is number two. Samsung supplies the famous Galaxy smart phone  and Apple the well known iPhone .  Over the last few years Samsung and Apple have fought each other in the world's court rooms.(see "Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd" in Wikipedia).  In the last round over Apple's registered Community design, Apple came off second best (see Jane Lambert "Apple v Samsung - the Appeal" 26 Oct 2012) and was made to eat humble pie (see Jane Lambert "Samsung v Apple: 'Be you never so high ....'." 2 Nov 2012 and "Samsung v Apple: the Reasons" 30 Dec 2012).  In  Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd v Apple Retail UK Ltd and Another (No. 1) [2013] EWHC 467 (Pat) and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v Apple Retail UK Ltd and Another   (No. 2) [2013] EWHC 468 (Pat) Apple did rather better. Mr. Ju...

In  Medimmune Ltd v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd and Another [2011] EWHC 1669 (Pat) (05 July 2011), Mr. Justice Arnold dismissed a claim for infringement of    European Patents (UK) numbers. 0,774,511 and 2,055,777 by selling a product called ranibizumab which is used for the treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration of the eye on the grounds that the patents were invalid for obviousness and that even if the claims relied upon were valid the process used by the defendants to make the product did not infringe.   In  Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd v Medimmune Ltd and Another [2012] EWHC 181 (Pat) (10 Feb 2012) the same judge declared that a supplementary protection certificate granted in respect of European patent number 2,055,777 was invalid not only in the light of his earlier finding but because the certificate was was granted in respect of a product that had not been identified in the wording of the relevant claim as a product deriving ...