EPLAW PATENT BLOG

EU – Teva and Mylan v. Gilead

Posted: April 26th, 2018

Teva UK Ltd, Accord Healthcare Ltd, Lupin Ltd, Lupin (Europe) Ltd, Generics (UK) trading as ‘Mylan’ v. Gilead Sciences Inc. Request for a preliminary ruling, Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet, 25 April 2018, Case C-121/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:278 “In the light of all the foregoing, I propose that the Court should answer the question referred for a preliminary […]

READ MORE

ES – MERCK SHARP & DOHME v. LABORATORIOS LEON FARMA

Posted: April 26th, 2018

Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V., Merck Sharp & Dohme España S.A. v. Laboratorios Leon Farma S.A. & Exeltis Healthcare S.L., Barcelona Commercial Court No. 5, 12 December 2017, Case Docket no. 660/2017 With this decision Barcelona Commercial Court No. 5 revoked the precautionary measures requested by Merck Sharp & Dome and initially granted inaudita parte […]

READ MORE

UK – Regeneron v. Kymab

Posted: April 26th, 2018

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Kymab Limited and Novo Nordisk A/S (UK Court of Appeal, 28 March 2018, [2018] EWCA Civ 671) The UK Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in the case of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v Kymab Ltd and Novo Nordisk A/S ([2018] EWCA Civ 671), which will now stand as an important […]

READ MORE

NL – Merck Sharp & Dohme v. The Dutch Patent Office

Posted: April 20th, 2018

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. vs. the Dutch Patent Office, District Court of The Hague, 10 April 2018, ECLI: NL:RBDHA:2018:4081 The issue at hand is whether the Dutch Patent Office (“DPO”) has rightfully refused the application for a Dutch supplementary protection certificate (“SPC”) for a combination product of ezetimib and rosuvastatin on the basis of […]

READ MORE

UK – Conversant Wireless v Huawei Technologies and  ZTE Corporation / FRAND

Posted: April 20th, 2018

Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R,L v (1) Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., (2) Huawei Technologies (UK) Co. Ltd, (3) ZTE Corporation (4) ZTE (UK) Limited, High Court of Justice, London, UK, 16 April 2018, [2018] EWHC 808 (Pat) Are the UK Courts an appropriate forum for hearing a global FRAND dispute where alleged infringement of Chinese patents […]

READ MORE

UK – Illumina v. Premaitha

Posted: April 18th, 2018

(1) Illumina, Inc. & (2) Sequenom, Inc v (1) Premaitha Health plc & (2) Premaitha Limited; (1) TDL Genetics Ltd, (2) The Doctors Laboratory Ltd & (3) Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. (19 March 2018, Patents Court, UK, Case Nos. HP-2017-000054 and HP-2017-000075) The UK Patents Court refused to strike out two patent infringement actions concerning a […]

READ MORE

UK – Edwards v. Boston

Posted: April 16th, 2018

Edwards v Boston, UK Patents Court, Floyd LJ, 30-31 January 2018, HHJ Hacon 21 March 2018 The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court’s decision that one of two patents owned by Boston Scientific Scimed Inc. relating to replacement heart valves was invalid, and the other valid and infringed by Edwards Lifesciences companies. In […]

READ MORE

NL – Sandoz v. AstraZeneca / invalidity

Posted: April 12th, 2018

Sandoz B.V. v. AstraZeneca AB, District Court The Hague, 11 April 2018, Case No. ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2018:4127 Contrary to earlier PI infringement proceedings, which were confirmed on appeal earlier (see here), the Court in invalidity proceedings instigated by Sandoz ruled that AstraZeneca’s  patent relating to a Fulvestrant formulation marketed under the name FASLODEX® which is used for […]

READ MORE

ES – FRACTUS v. WIKO / Preliminary injunction / Mobile World Congress IP Fast Action Protocol

Posted: April 5th, 2018

Fractus S.A. v. Wikomobile Iberia S.L., Barcelona Commercial Court No. 5, 16 February 2018, Docket No. 4/2018 In the context of the IP Fast Action Protocol adopted for the 2018 Mobile World Congress (see more information here), the Spanish company FRACTUS, owner of several patents related to antenna technology for wireless devices, filed an inter […]

READ MORE

NL – Coloplast v. Medical4You / Appeal

Posted: March 30th, 2018

Coloplast holds EP ‘729 for a ‘ready-to-use urine catheter assembly’. The package according to the patent is a so called ‘wet package’. Contrary to the Technical Board of Appeal, the Court of Appeal rules that a catheter in a ‘wet package’ is not inventive. The Court of Appeal further states that once put on the […]

READ MORE