EPLAW PATENT BLOG

UK – Actavis v. ICOS / Appeal

Posted: November 8th, 2017

Actavis Group PTC EHF & Others v (1) ICOS Corporation (2) Eli Lilly & Company The UK Court of Appeal has recently handed down its decision in Actavis v ICOS. Lewison, Kitchen and Floyd LLJ held that ICOS’s patent EP (UK) 1,173,181 (the “Patent”) was invalid for obviousness overturning the first instance decision of Birss […]

READ MORE

IT – Fresenius v. Lilly

Posted: October 3rd, 2017

Fresenius Kabi Oncology PLC and Fresenius Kabi Italia S.r.l. (“Fresenius”) sought before the Court of Milan a urgent declaration of non-infringement with respect to their new antitumor drug based on pemetrexed diacid in combination with tromethamine. Fresenius requested the Court to declare that its drug does not infringe – whether directly or indirectly – EP […]

READ MORE

NL – Ruby Decor v. Basic Holdings / Appeal

Posted: August 30th, 2017

Ruby Decor B.V. and Aparto B.V. v. Basic Holdings ULC, Court of Appeal The Hague, 22 August 2017, Case No. ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2017:2409, with thanks to Alexander Tsoutsanis, DLA Piper, for sending in the judgment as well as an English translation thereof  Artificial fireplaces. Earlier, the Judge in PI proceedings ruled that in his preliminary opinion Ruby Decor did […]

READ MORE

UK – Actavis v Eli Lilly / Supreme Court

Posted: July 12th, 2017

Actavis UK Limited and others v Eli Lilly and Company, UK Supreme Court, 12 July 2017, [2017] UKSC 48 The UK Supreme Court today gave its judgment in the long-running Actavis v Eli Lilly case concerning Lilly’s Alimta vitamin regimen patents in the UK, France, Italy and Spain. The Supreme Court allowed Lilly’s appeal and […]

READ MORE

NL – Carl Zeiss v. VSY

Posted: June 9th, 2017

Carl Zeiss Meditec AG v. VSY Biotechnology B.V. et al., District Court The Hague, The Netherlands, 7 June 2017, Case No. ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:6136 European Patent on an intraocular (implantable) lens. Interpretation of claims. The Dutch part of the patent is valid: the hurdles of novelty, inventive step and enablement were all taken successfully. The patent is […]

READ MORE

UK – Teva UK Limited & Ors v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation

Posted: May 1st, 2017

(1) Teva UK Limited, (2) Accord Healthcare Limited, (3) Generics (UK) Limited trading as Mylan v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation Arnold J held that Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation’s (“MSD”) SPC was invalid as it did not comply with either Article 3(a) or Article 3(c) of the SPC Regulation. The SPC in issue was […]

READ MORE

UK – Stretchline Intellectual Properties v. H&M (Hennes & Mauritz)

Posted: April 6th, 2017

Stretchline Intellectual Properties Limited v. H&M (Hennes & Mauritz) Limited, UK, Court of Appeal, McCombe and Floyd LLJ, 30 March 2017 To what extent should the claims of a patent be construed so as to make a patent valid over the prior art? That was the critical question at the heart of H&M’s appeal from […]

READ MORE

UK – IPCom v. HTC

Posted: March 27th, 2017

IPCom v HTC, UK Court of Appeal, 28 February 2017, neutral citation number [2017] EWCA Civ 90 The Court of Appeal has handed down the latest decision in the long running litigation between IPCom and HTC. IPCom had appealed the High Court’s decision that HTC’s smartphones did not infringe IPCom’s European Patent (UK) 1 841 […]

READ MORE

NL – HTW v. Permavoid

Posted: January 5th, 2017

HTW Infiltratietechniek B.V. v. Permavoid Limited, Court of Appeal of the Hague, the Netherlands, 27 December 2016, Case number C/09/456139 / HA ZA 13-1362 Permavoid is the holder of European patent EP 1 311 727 B1 for ‘a pavement with structural module’. All claims of EP ‘727 are directed to a ‘vehicular trafficked pavement structure’. […]

READ MORE