Archive - July 2015

Last year we reported the decision of the UK High Court in the case of Actavis v Lilly, concerning the anti-cancer drug pemetrexed disodium (see here). To recap briefly, the UK High Court ruled that Actavis’ pemetrexed dipotassium product did not infringe Lilly’s patent directed to pemetrexed disodium either under direct infringement, or under indirect […]

The CJEU has set out criteria to determine when the owner of a FRAND encumbered patent may seek an injunction when the owner is in a dominant market position. Significantly, a patent owner in that position is now required to offer a licence at a specific royalty to the infringer before seeking an injunction. This […]

The EPO recently announced slight changes (found here) to the procedure regarding Rule 71(3) EPC communications, which allows an applicant a final opportunity to amend or correct their application before grant. Prior to 1 July 2015, when an applicant responded to a R71(3) communication with amendments, a new R71(3) communication had to be issued if […]

In the recent case of Smith & Nephew Plc v ConvaTec Technologies Inc (see here), the Court of Appeal issued an interesting decision concerning how the boundaries of a range in a claim should be interpreted. In a surprise move, they concluded that a claimed range of “between 1{e27634494e39db391c4a3c1babcce9c96667e0da0c02f00a98e80c871bbff07c} and 25{e27634494e39db391c4a3c1babcce9c96667e0da0c02f00a98e80c871bbff07c}” of an agent should […]

Please click on the link below for our Summer 2015 client magazine – IP Review. IP Review – Summer 2015 Older editions can be found here. We hope you find the publication interesting. If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in the magazine or any intellectual property matter, please contact us. […]