NIPC Law

Office of the President of the University of California Author Coolcaesar   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0    Source Wikimedia Common s   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Arnold, Snowden and Zacaroli)  Accord Healthcare Ltd and others v Regents of the University of California and another [2025] EWCA Civ 936 (23 July 2025) This was an appeal by Accord Healthcare Limited and other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers against Mr Justice Mellor's dismissal of their claims for revocation of European Patent (UK) No. 1 893 196 (“the patent”) and SPC No. SPC/GB13/079 (“the SPC”)  on grounds of obviousness , implausibility and insufficiency in Accord Healthcare Ltd and others v Regents of the University of California and another [2024] EWHC 2524 (Pat) (8 Oct 2024). They appealed with the permission of Lord Justice Arnold.  His lordship heard the appeal with Lord Justice Snowden and Lord Justice Zacaroli on 2 July 2025.  The Lord Justices handed...

  Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Peter Jackson, Arnold and Stuart Smith) Generics (UK) Ltd and others v AstraZeneca AB    [2025] EWCA Civ 903 (16 July 2025) This was an appeal by AstraZeneca AB from the judgment of Dr Michael Tappin KC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court in    Generics (UK) Ltd v AstraZeneca AB [2025] EWHC 1012 (Pat) (28 April 2025).  In that case, Generics (UK) Limited and several other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers had claimed a declaration that the following supplementary protection certificates were invalid and an order for their revocation: SPC/GB13/021  for dapagliflozin and pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof;   and SPC/GB14/050  for a combination of dapagliflozin or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof and metformin or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof.  Those SPCs derived from  European patent (UK) 1 506 211 B1 .  The claimants contended that the ...

Author Renardo la vulpo   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0 Deed   Source Wikimedia Common s   Jane Lambert Enlarged Board of Appeal  (C. Josefsson, I. Beckedorf, F. Blumer, T. Bokor, P. Catallozzi, P. Gryczka and A. Ritzka)  G 0002/21 Syngenta Ltd v Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd  23 March 2023 European patent No. 2 484 209   ("the patent") has been granted to Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd. ("Sumitomo") for a mixture of thiamethoxam and other compounds in accordance with a formula disclosed in the specification.  That mixture produces an insecticidal activity that is greater than would be achieved by any of those compounds administered on its own ("the invention"). Syngenta Limited ("Syngenta") objected to the patent on the grounds that the invention was not new or obvious , that it had not been properly disclosed and it included added matter . The European Patent Convention ("EPC") provides a procedure for the revocation of a patent known as "oppositi...

  Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Arnold, Nugee and Warby) Sandoz Ltd v Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company [2023] EWCA Civ 472 (4 May 2023) This was an appeal by Bristol Myers Squibb Ireland ("BMS") against Mr Justice Meade's judgment in    Sandoz Ltd and another v Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland (Unlimited) Company [2022] EWHC 822 (Pat) (7 April 2022) which I discussed in  Patents - Sandoz Ltd v Bristol-Myers Squibb   on 28 Aug 2022.  In that judgment, his lordship held that  European patent (UK) 1 427 415 B1 (“the patent”)  was invalid for lack of plausibility and technical contribution.  Permission to appeal against Mr Justice Meade's judgment was granted by Lord Justice Lewison. The appeal was heard by Lord Justices Arnold, Nugee and Warby on 19 and 20 April 2022. They handed down judgment on 4 May 202. Their lordships unanimously dismissed the appeal (see Sandoz Ltd v Bristol-Myers Sq...

Author User:Jynto   Licence CCO 1.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor)  Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd and another v Teva UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 954 (Pat) (26 April 2022) This was an application by    Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd., the proprietor of  European patent (UK)  3,103,443 , and Flynn Pharma Limited, Neurim's exclusive licensee, for an interim injunction to restrain Teva UK Ltd. from disposing, offering for sale or disposal, selling or supplying any generic version of the claimants'  Circadin  product that falls within any of the claims of that patent or that has been manufactured by any process that falls within any of its claims until judgment or further order.  An interim injunction is a court order to do, stop doing or not to do something on pain of punishment for disobedience.  The approach by which a court decides whether or not to make such an order was set out ...

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...

  Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Meade)  Sandoz Ltd and another v Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland (Unlimited) Company  [2022] EWHC 822 (Pat) (7 April 2022) These were two separate actions for the revocation of a  European patent (UK)   1 427 415 B1 (“the patent”) .  The patent was held by Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland (Unlimited) Company ("BMS") and the proceedings were brought by  Sandoz Limited (“Sandoz”) and   Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (“Teva”). BMS  counterclaimed against both claimants for infringement which was admitted subject to the validity of the patent. The actions came on for trial before Mr Justice Mrade between 31 Jan and 10 Feb 2022.  By para [257] of his judgment of 7 April 2022 he held that the patent was invalid for lack of plausibility and technical contribution ( see Sandoz Ltd v Bristol-Myers Squib Holdings Ireland (Unlimited) Company [2022] EWHC 822 (Pat) (7 April 2022...