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 (Ms Pat Treacy) Insulet Corporation v Roche Diabetes Care Ltd [2021] EWHC 1907 (Pat) (9 July 2021) This was a patent infringement claim with a patent revocation counterclaim. The patent in suit was EP (UK) 1 335 764  for a device and system for patient infusion.  The action and counterclaim came on before Ms Pat Treacy sitting as a judge of the High Court between 11 and 13 May 2021. She delivered judgment on 9 July 2021 (see Insulet Corporation v Roche Diabetes Care Ltd [2021] EWHC 1907). At para [452] of her judgment, she found that claim 2 of the patent had been anticipated by the PCT application known as "PhiScience".  At [525] she concluded that all claims other than claim 3 had been obvious over PhiScience but not over another PCT application known as "MiniMed."   At para [587] she held that all the claims in issue were invalid by reason of added matter.  Finally, she found that none of the claims in issue had been i...

Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss)  Takeda UK Ltd v F Hoffmann-La Roche AG (Rev 1 ) [2019] EWHC 1911 (Pat) (17 July 2019) This was a claim by Takeda UK Ltd. ("Takeda") for revocation of European patent (UK) No EP2007809  on grounds of lack of novelty, want of an inventive step and insufficiency and a counterclaim by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG ("Roche"), the owner of the patent, for infringement.  This litigation appears to have arisen because Takeda has a product called Entyvio which is a formulation of a monoclonal antibody called vedolizumab .   Roche believes that vedolizumab infringes its patent. The action and counterclaim came on for trial before Mr Justice Birss between the 12 and 27 June 2019. He delivered judgment on 17 July 2019. The Patent The title of the patent was glycosylated antibodies.   Mr Justice Birsss discussed the patent between paragraphs [51] and [101] of his judgment.  The claims a...

Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Arnold):  Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) and another v Yeda Research And Development Company Ltd [2017] EWHC 2629 (Pat) (26 Oct 2017) On Wednesday, 28 Feb 2018 I gave a talk to the C5 Pharma and Patent Litigation Conference   at the Radisson Blu Hotel in Amsterdam. Mine was one of three talks on the topic Infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents.  I discussed the law of England in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and others  [2017] UKSC 48, [2017] Bus LR 1731 while  Paul Reeskamp  and Philipp Cepl , who practise in the Netherlands and Germany, considered the topic in the light of the developing case law in their jurisdictions. I had previously written about the Supreme Court's judgment in  The Supreme Court's Judgment in Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and Others: how to understand it and why it is important   13 July 2017. Possibly because Lord Ne...