NIPC Law

Jane Lambert   Patents Court (Mr Justice Macaroli) Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Ltd and others v Warner Lambert LLC and another [2021] EWHC 2182 (Ch) (30 July 2021) Each of the 35 claimants in these proceedings had been awarded an inquiry as to damages either for losses sustained as a result of an interim injunction that the defendants had agreed to pay or for losses resulting from threats of litigation that the court had held to be groundless.  Most of the claimants were pharmaceutical companies that supplied pregabalin  which they were allowed to distribute for the treatment of epilepsy and anxiety but not neuropathic pain.  The remaining claimants were the governments of the United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the National Health Service that wished to treat patients for neuropathic pain with generic products. The Dispute Warner Lambert Company LLC was the proprietor of  EP0641330 B1  for isobutylgaba, of which pregabalin is a deriv...

Autho r Ac dx Source Wikipedia Creative Commons Licence Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) v Warner-Lambert Company LLC   [2016] EWCA Civ 1006 (13 Oct 2016) This was an appeal against two of Mr Justice Arnold's judgments. The first was his decision in  Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) v Warner-Lambert Company LLC   [2015] EWHC 2548 (Pat) which I discussed in  The Pregabalin Trial: Generics (UK) Ltd v Warner-Lambert Company LLC   18 Sept 2015. The second was his refusal to allow Warner-Lambert to amend certain claims of its patent after trial in    Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) v Warner-Lambert Company LLC [2015] EWHC 3370 (Pat) on the ground that the application was an abuse of the process of the court. The Issues Lord Justice Floyd, who delivered the lead judgment on the appeal, identified the issues before the Court of Appeal as follows in the first paragraph of his judgment: "Firstly, did Arnold J correctly hold certain claims of...

According to drugs.com , pregabalin is an anti-epileptic drug which works by slowing down impulses in the brain that cause seizures. A European patent for the drug was granted to Warner-Lambert Co, LLC  ( "Warner-Lambert" )(now a subsidiary of Pfizer Inc . ) under EP number 0 641 330. That patent expired on 17 May 2013 but was extended by a supplementary protection certificate ( "SPC" ) until 17 May 2018. That SPC was allowed to lapse on 14 Oct 2013 and Warner-Lambert's data exclusivity in respect of the data used to obtain the marketing authorisation for prehabalin expired on 8 July 2014. Since then anybody has been free to make, import or sell pregabalin for treating epilepsy and generalized anxiety disorder in the United Kingdom and several companies including some of the parties to these proceedings have done just that. Drugs.com notes that pregabalin also affects chemicals in the brain that send pain signals across the nervous system. ...

In  Warner -Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Plc EHF and Others   [2015] EWHC 72 (Pat) (21 Jan 2015) Warner-Lambert LLC applied to Mr Justice Arnold for an interim injunction in the following terms: "1, The Defendants:  (a) shall make it a condition of any oral or written agreement entered into with a pharmacy for the supply of Lecaent that the pharmacy shall use reasonable endeavours not to supply or dispense Lecaent to patients who have been prescribed pregabalin for the treatment of pain, by making reasonable enquiries of a person presenting a prescription for 'pregabalin' as to whether the prescription is for pain and/or making reasonable checks of pharmacy records for the same; and  (b) shall make it a condition of any oral or written agreement entered into with an intermediary (such as a distributor) for the supply of Lecaent that, in any onward supply of Lecaent by the intermediary, such intermediary must in turn make it a condition ...

Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd. v AstraZeneca AB [2011] EWHC 1831 (Pat) (15 July 2011) raises an interesting point on the interpretation of claims. To be more precise "Swiss style claims". Swiss style claims get their name from the legal advice of the Swiss Federal Intellectual Property Office of 30 May 1984 (OJ EPO 581) on the patentability of compounds used in the manufacture of a medicine for the treatment of a disease. As Mr. Justice Kitchin explained between paragraphs [42] and [60] this convoluted form of words was devised to get around the exclusion by art 52 (4) of the European Patent Convention before its revision in 2000 of "methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body." Lord Justice Jacob discussed Swiss style claims in some detail in Actavis UK Ltd v Merck & Co Inc [2008] EWCA Civ 444 (21 May 2008). The usual context in which Swiss style claims are considered is "second...