NIPC Law

  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...

Jane Lambert Patents Court ( HH Judge Hacon)  Technetix BV and another v Teleste Ltd   [2019] EWHC 3106 (Pat) (18 Nov 2019) This was a claim for patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation on grounds of anticipation , obviousness  and added matter. There was also an application for unconditional and conditional amendments to the patent. The claim and counterclaim came on before His Honour Judge Hacon sitting as a judge of the Patents Court in  Technetix BV and another v Teleste Ltd [2019] EWHC 3106 (Pat) (18 Nov 2019). His Honour tried the action in May and delivered judgment on 18 Nov 2019. The learned judge held at paragraph [122] of his judgment that the patent was invalid on all three grounds .and refused the amendments though he found that the patent would have been infringed hand it been valid. The Patent The patent in suit was European patent 1259074 for a c ommunication system comprising means for preventing intermodulati...

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 ...