EPLAW PATENT BLOG

FR – Agilent & Hewlett- Packard v. Waters

Posted: January 14th, 2009

Agilent Technologies Deutschland GmbH and Hewlett-Packard GmbH v. Waters Corporation and Waters SAS, calculation of damages, Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris, France, 14 January 2009, Docket No. 97/20725, with thanks to Pierre Véron, Véron & Associés The compensation granted to the patentee for the loss of profit caused by the infringement may be calculated on […]

READ MORE

UK – Generics (UK) Ltd v. Daiichi Pharmaceutical

Posted: October 15th, 2008

Generics (UK) Ltd v. Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd and Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd, High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, 15 October 2008, with thanks to Marc Döring, Simmons & Simmons
The English Patents Court’s decisions in Dr Reddy’s v Eli Lilly

READ MORE

UK – Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (UK) Ltd v. Eli Lilly

Posted: October 13th, 2008

Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Ltd v. Eli Lilly and Company Limited, High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, 13 October 2008, Case No. [2008] EWHC 2345 (Pat), with thanks to Marc Döring, Simmons & Simmons The English Patents Court's decisions in Dr Reddy's v Eli Lilly (Floyd J – 13 October 2008) and Generics […]

READ MORE

UK – Conor Medsystems Incorporated v. Angiotech Pharmaceuticals

Posted: July 9th, 2008

Conor Medsystems Incorporated v. Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Incorporated and others, 9 July 2008, Case No. [2008] UKHL 49, with thanks to Marc Döring and Rowan Freeland, Simmons & Simmons
The decision clarifies the approach towards identifying the “inventive concept” in a patent claim and represents a move away from “obvious to try” as a test for obviousness.

READ MORE

UK – Actavis v. Merck / Dosage Regimes

Posted: May 21st, 2008

Actavis UK Limited v. Merck & Co Inc, Court of Appeal (Civil Division) London, UK, 21 May 2008, Case No. [2008] EWCA Civ 444, with thanks to Marc Döring and Rowan Freeland, Simmons & Simmons

READ MORE

UK – Glaxo Group v. Genentech and Biogen / Stay of proceedings pending EPO opposition

Posted: January 31st, 2008

Glaxo Group Limited v. Genentech Inc and Biogen Idec Inc, Court of Appeal, London, UK, 31 January 2008, Case No. [2008] EWCA Civ 23, with thanks to Marc Döring and Rowan Freeland (Simmons & Simmons)
In this decision, the Court of Appeal has given important guidance on the circumstances in which should the Patents Court should exercise its inherent power to stay patent revocation proceedings

READ MORE

UK – Les Laboratoires Servier v. Apotex Inc

Posted: July 9th, 2007

Les Laboratoires Servier & ANR v. Apotex Inc & ANR, Court of Appeal, Civil division, London, UK, 9 July 2007, Case No. (2007) EWCA Civ 783, with thanks to Marc Döring and Rowan Freeland, Simmons & Simmons On 09 July 2007, the English Court of Appeal clarified the guidance it gave in Pozzoli SPA v […]

READ MORE

UK – Les Laboratoires Servier v. Apotex Inc

Posted: July 9th, 2007

Les Laboratoires Servier & ANR v. Apotex Inc & ANR, Court of Appeal, Civil division, London, UK, 9 July 2007, Case No. (2007) EWCA Civ 783, with thanks to Marc Döring and Rowan Freeland, Simmons & Simmons
On 09 July 2007, the English Court of Appeal clarified the guidance

READ MORE

UK – Pozzoli SPA v BDMO / Obviousness

Posted: June 22nd, 2007

Pozzoli SPA v BDMO c.s., Court of Appeal, London, UK, 22 June 2007, Case No. [2007] EWCA Civ 588, with thanks to Marc Döring and Rowan Freeland, Simmons & Simmons
The English Court of Appeal has used a recent judgment to restate the approach of the English court towards the assessment of obviousness (

READ MORE

UK – Generics (UK) Ltd. v. H Lundbeck

Posted: August 2nd, 2006

GENERICS (UK) LTD v. H LUNDBECK A/S, Court of Appeal, London, UK, 2 August 2006, Case No. [2006] EWCA Civ 1261, with thanks to Marc Döring and Rowan Freeland, Simmons & Simmons
The UK Court of Appeal has ruled that suppliers of active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) are not to be considered joint infringers

READ MORE