Construction of second medical use claims. The Hon. Mr Justice Richard Arnold
|
|
- Douglas Cannon
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Construction of second medical use claims The Hon. Mr Justice Richard Arnold The problem Claim 1 of European Patent (UK) No reads: Use of [pregabalin] or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof for the preparation of a pharmaceutical composition for treating pain. What does the word for in the phrase for treating pain mean? How can this be interpreted so as to provide fair protection for the patent proprietor and reasonable certainty for third parties? Background to the problem: Swiss-form claims Claim 1 set out above is a claim in so-called Swiss-form. Claims in this form were devised in response to the provisions of the European Patents Convention 1973, and in particular the following provisions: Article 52 EPC 1973: Patentable inventions (1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions which are susceptible of industrial application, which are new and which involve an inventive step. (4) Methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body shall not be regarded as inventions which are susceptible of industrial application within the meaning of paragraph 1. This provision shall not apply to products, in particular substances or compositions, for use in any of these methods. Article 54 EPC 1973: Novelty (1) An invention shall be considered to be new if it does not form part of the state of the art. (5) The provisions of paragraphs 1 to 4 shall not exclude the patentability of any substance or composition, comprised in the state of the art, for use in a method referred to in Article 52, paragraph 4, provided that its use for any method referred to in that paragraph is not comprised in the state of the art. G5/83 EISAI/Second medical indication [1984] OJEPO 64 In G5/83 a question of law was referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office as to whether it was possible to circumvent the prohibition on patenting methods of treatment by therapy in Article 52(4) EPC 1973 by means of a claim directed to the use of a substance or composition for the treatment of the human or animal body by therapy. The Enlarged Board answered that question in the negative, holding that a claim to use of a substance or composition for treatment was no different in content to a claim directed 1
2 to a method of treatment, the difference between the two claims being one of form only. Of its own motion, the Enlarged Board then considered whether claims in Swiss-form were patentable, and held that they were. The core of its reasoning was as follows: 19. the Enlarged Board has also given careful consideration to the possibility of protecting second (and subsequent) medical indications by means of a claim directed to the use of a substance or composition for the manufacture of a medicament for a specified (new) therapeutic application. Such claims do not conflict with Article 52(4) EPC or Article 57 EPC but there may be a problem concerning the novelty of the invention. 21. it is clear that in all fields of industrial activity other than those of making products for use in surgery, therapy and diagnostic methods, a new use for a known product can be fully protected as such by claims directed to that use. Article 54(5) EPC provides an exception to this general rule, however, so far as the first use of medicaments is concerned, in respect of which the normal type of use claim is prohibited by Article 52(4) EPC. In effect, in this case the required novelty for the medicament which forms the subject-matter of the claim is derived from the new pharmaceutical use. It seems justifiable by analogy to derive the novelty for the process which forms the subject-matter of the type of use claim now being considered from the new therapeutic use of the medicament and this irrespective of the fact whether a pharmaceutical use of the medicament was already known or not. G2/88 MOBIL/Friction reducing additive [1990] OJEPO 93 G2/88 was not a case about a second medical use, but rather a case about a new use of old product outside the medical field. Nevertheless, it is relevant to the issue of novelty which arose in G5/83. The Enlarged Board of Appeal held at [10.3] with respect to a claim to a new use of a known compound, such new use may reflect a newly discovered technical effect described in the patent. The attaining of such a technical effect should then be considered as a functional technical feature of the claim (e.g. the achievement in a particular context of that technical effect). If that technical feature has not been previously made available to the public by any of the means as set out in Article 54(2) EPC, then the claimed invention is novel, even though such technical effect may have inherently taken place in the course of carrying out what has previously been made available to the public. The impact of the European Patent Convention 2000 The provisions which had given rise to Swiss-form claims were revised in the European Patent Convention This provides: Article 53 EPC 2000: Exceptions to patentability European patents shall not be granted in respect of: 2
3 (c) methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body; this provision shall not apply to products, in particular substances or compositions, for use in any of these methods Article 54 EPC 2000: Novelty (4) Paragraphs 2 and 3 shall not exclude the patentability of any substance or composition, comprised in the state of the art, for use in a method referred to in Article 53(c), provided that its use for any such method is not comprised in the state of the art. (5) Paragraphs 2 and 3 shall also not exclude the patentability of any substance or composition referred to in paragraph 4 for any specific use in a method referred to in Article 53(c), provided that such use is not comprised in the state of the art. G2/08 ABBOTT RESPIRATORY/Dosage regime [2010] EPOR 26 In G2/08 questions were referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal as to whether Articles 53(c) and 54(5) EPC 2000 precluded the patenting of a medicament, the use of which to treat a particular illness was already known, for use in a new and inventive treatment of the same illness, and in a particular a new and inventive dosage regime. In addition to considering these questions, the Enlarged Board considered the justification of continuing to permit the grant of claims in Swiss-form. In this regard it held: 6.5 In respect of second and further medical indications the EPC now allows use-related product claims directed to the substance itself whereas under EPC 1973 decision G 5/83 allowed claims directed to the use of a substance for the manufacture of the drug for a therapeutic indication ( Swiss-type claims ). It appears that the rights conferred on the patentee by the claim category under Article 54(5) EPC are likely broader, and could, in particular, lead to possible restrictions on the freedom of medical practitioners to prescribe or administer generics. However, in view of the clear provisions of Articles 53(c), second sentence, and 54(5) EPC and the intention of the legislator, the Enlarged Board has no power to broaden or reduce in a praetorian way the scope of these provisions Swiss-type claims could be (and have been) considered objectionable as regards the question as to whether they fulfill the patentability requirements, due to the absence of any functional relationship of the features (belonging to therapy) conferring novelty and inventiveness, if any, and the claimed manufacturing process. Therefore, where the subject matter of a claim is rendered novel only by a new therapeutic use of a medicament, such claim may no longer have the format of a so called Swiss-type claim as instituted by decision G 5/83. 3
4 Case T1780/12 UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS BOARD OF REGENTS/Cancer treatment [2014] EPOR 28 In T1780/12 the Board of Appeal held that the inclusion of both claims in Swiss-form and purpose-limited use claims as permitted by EPC 2000 did not give to a double-patenting objection. In this regard it held at [22]: It follows from the above analysis (see points 16 and 17) that the claims under consideration belong to different categories, i.e. purpose-limited process claim vs. purpose-limited product claim. It is generally accepted as a principle underlying the EPC that a claim to a particular physical activity (e.g. method, process, use) confers less protection than a claim to the physical entity per se, see decision G 2/88 (supra, reasons, point 5). It follows that a purpose-limited process claim also confers less protection than a purpose-limited product claim. The context of the problem: skinny labels for pharmaceuticals Pregabalin is marketed by Pfizer under the trade mark Lyrica for epilepsy, generalised anxiety disorder ( GAD ) and neuropathic pain. It is also prescribed off-label for other types of pain. Patent protection for pregabalin itself expired on 17 May 2013 and Pfizer s data exclusivity expired on 8 July In 2014 at least 90% of prescriptions for pregabalin in the UK were written generically, about 95% of prescriptions did not state the indication for which pregabalin had been prescribed and about 70% of prescriptions were in fact for the treatment of pain. On 16 February 2015 Actavis obtained a marketing authorisation for generic pregabalin limited to epilepsy and GAD (a so-called skinny label ) which it marketed under the trade mark Lecaent from the following day. Even though Actavis only marketed Lecaent for epilepsy and GAD, Pfizer alleged that Actavis infringed Pfizer s second medical use patent for treating pain because it was likely that pharmacists would dispense the generic product against prescriptions which were in fact for the treatment of pain even if the prescription did not identify the indication. Pfizer applied for a preliminary injunction, which was refused by the Patents Court ([2015] EWHC 72 (Pat) and by the Court of Appeal ([2015] EWCA Civ 556). At trial the Patents Court dismissed the claim for infringement ([2015] EWHC 2548 (Pat)), but granted Pfizer permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The appeal is pending. 4
5 The rival contentions It was common ground that for did not merely mean suitable for (as it normally does in patent claims) since the claim would then lack novelty. Actavis contended that for meant intended for. Pfizer contended in essence that for meant which it is foreseeable will be used for. The Court of Appeal s interpretation on the first appeal The essence of the Court of Appeal s reasoning was as follows: 121. the skilled person would understand that the technical subject matter of the claim was concerned with the ultimate end use of the medicament, from which it derived its novelty. The therapeutic treatment is of course new because, and only because, it is carried out with the intention of producing the new therapeutic effect. The prior use of the compound may have in fact produced the effect, for example if a patient taking it for GAD or epilepsy was at the time experiencing pain as well. This demonstrates, to my mind, that it is the intention for which the compound is administered which is at the heart of the invention Against that background the skilled person would understand the word for in the claim to be providing a link between the act of manufacture using pregabalin and the ultimate intentional use of the drug by the end user to treat pain. The critical issue. is what is sufficient to constitute that link If a product is for a particular therapeutic indication if it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used intentionally for the treatment of pain, then it will not be rendered lacking in novelty by showing that products in the prior art had been manufactured in circumstances when it was not possible to foresee such a result I can therefore see no reason why the skilled person would conclude that the word for implied subjective intent. He would understand that the manufacturer who knows (and for this purpose constructive knowledge is enough) or could reasonably foresee that some of his drug will intentionally be used for pain is making use of the patentee's inventive contribution, in the same way as a manufacturer who actively desires that result. In my judgment, therefore, the skilled person would understand that the patentee was using the word for in the claim to require that the manufacturer knows (in the above sense) or can reasonably foresee the ultimate intentional use for pain, not that he have that specific intention or desire himself. 5
6 Difficulties with the Court of Appeal s interpretation Certain difficulties with the Court of Appeal s interpretation were identified in the judgment of the Patents Court after trial. In particular: 625. The claim is to a method of manufacture of a pharmaceutical composition which derives its novelty from the mental state of the manufacturer, namely that the manufacturer prepares the pharmaceutical composition for treating pain. Counsel argued that this clearly directs attention to the manufacturer s purpose, i.e. intention, rather than mere foreseeability as to the prescriber s intention. As counsel for Actavis put it, on Floyd LJ s construction, there is no technical nexus between the manufacturer s acts and the intention to achieve the new therapeutic effect which gives the claim novelty 627. As [counsel] pointed out, Floyd LJ expressly accepted at [118] that [m]aking pregablin for patients to whom it is to be administered for the non-patented indications is not within the technical subject matter of the claim. Accordingly, this cannot be an infringing act. Counsel submitted that Floyd LJ s construction apparently had the consequence that, if it was foreseeable to an unlicensed manufacturer of pregabalin that some of his drug (as Floyd LJ put it at [127], emphasis added) would be intentionally administered for the treatment of pain, then all of that manufacturer s acts of manufacture of pregabalin would be infringing acts even though it was foreseeable that the remainder of its pregabalin would be administered for the treatment of non-patented indications. Furthermore, this would be so even if it was foreseeable that the majority (possibly even the vast majority, depending on what was meant by some ) of the pregabalin made by that manufacturer would be administered for the treatment of the non-patented indications and even if the majority (possibly the vast majority) was in fact administered for the treatment of those indications. Still further, all of the pregabalin would be infringing product, and thus anyone who subsequently dealt in it would also infringe on a strict liability basis. Application of the Court of Appeal s interpretation Despite the difficulties identified above, the Patents Court followed the Court of Appeal s interpretation. Difficulties were also identified in applying the Court of Appeal s interpretation to the facts of case. As to this, the Patents Court reasoned as follows: 636. Counsel for Actavis submitted that the relevant intention was that of the prescribing doctor. I agree that the intention of the doctor is highly relevant, if not exclusively so. Floyd LJ expressly referred to the doctor at [119], and at [121] he made the point that the novelty of the claim derives from the intention of producing the new therapeutic effect. It is the prescribing doctor who intends to produce the new therapeutic effect (here treating pain) because it is the doctor who has the requisite medical knowledge. 6
7 638. What about the pharmacist? After considerable hesitation, I have concluded that, on Floyd LJ s reasoning, the intention of the pharmacist is also relevant. In general, of course, the pharmacist will simply intend to dispense the drug which the doctor has prescribed for the purpose of treating whatever indication the doctor has prescribed that drug for. Moreover, in general, the pharmacist will not know what that indication is. In those circumstances the pharmacist s intention adds nothing to that of the doctor. Even if the doctor prescribes generic pregabalin for treating pain and the pharmacist dispenses the generic manufacturer s product, neither the doctor nor the pharmacist nor the two in combination will have intended that that product be administered for the treatment of pain. But what if the pharmacist knows that the doctor has prescribed generic pregabalin for treating pain and the pharmacist dispenses the generic manufacturer s product? In those circumstances it seems to me that it can be said that the result is intentional administration of the generic manufacturer s product to treat pain. Solutions to the problem As the case discussed above shows, it is very difficult to interpret Swiss-form claims in a manner which provides fair protection for the patentee and reasonable certainty for third parties. Accordingly, the following solutions to the problem are proposed: 1. The best solution is to separate the patented market from the non-patented market by ensuring that the active ingredient is prescribed by the patent proprietor s brand name for indications covered by the second medical use patent and by the generic name for other indications. This is particularly important while second medical use patents with claims in Swiss form continue to subsist. 2. In the case of second medical use patents with claims in EPC 2000 form, the patent proprietor can bring a claim for indirect infringement under Article 26 of the Community Patent Convention. Whereas Swiss-form claims are purpose-limited process claims, and there is no step of preparation after the pharmaceutical composition has been put on the market together with instructions for administration, EPC 2000 claims are purpose-limited product claims. The proprietor will still have to show that the requirements of Article 26 CPC are satisfied, but some difficulties will be avoided. 3. In the long term Article 53(c) EPC 2000 should be repealed and replaced by an exception to infringement in favour of healthcare professionals. 7
Patentable Subject Matter and Medical Use Claims in the Pharmaceutical Sector
Patentable Subject Matter and Medical Use Claims in the Pharmaceutical Sector 2012 LIDC Congress, Prague, 12 October 2012 Dr. Simon Holzer, Attorney-at-Law, Partner 3 October 2012 2 Introduction! Conflicting
More informationSecond medical use or indication claims. Winnie Tham, Edmund Kok, Nicholas Ong
Question Q238 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: AIPPI SINGAPORE Second medical use or indication claims Winnie Tham, Edmund Kok, Nicholas Ong THAM, Winnie Date: 17
More information"And then there were. 18 th Annual Patent Seminar. Gordon Harris, Legal01# v1[GDH]
"And then there were three " Gordon Harris, 2016 18 th Annual Patent Seminar Legal01#57492496v1[GDH] Dedicated to the memory of David Keltie 1938 2016 1 CONTENTS Clause Heading Page 1 Introduction... 3
More informationSecond medical use or indication claims. Mr. Antonio Ray ORTIGUERA Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices Philippines
Question Q238 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: PHILIPPINES Second medical use or indication claims Mr. Alex Ferdinand FIDER Mr. Antonio Ray ORTIGUERA Angara Abello
More informationPregabalin: Where stand plausibility, Swiss-form claims, late amendment and more?
University College London IBIL Innovation Seminar 2018 Pregabalin: Where stand plausibility, Swiss-form claims, late amendment and more? Dr. Matthias Zigann Presiding Judge Regional Court Munich I Swiss
More informationSecond medical use or indication claims. [Please insert name last name in CAPITAL letters please]
Question Q238 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: New Zealand Second medical use or indication claims Michael BROWN, Partner Helen BELLCHAMBERS, Associate A J Park [Please
More informationSecond medical use or indication claims
Question Q238 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: Bulgarian National Group Second medical use or indication claims Valentina NESHEVA Valentina NESHEVA Date: 16 May 2014
More informationCA/PL 7/99 Orig.: German Munich, SUBJECT: Revision of the EPC: Articles 52(4) and 54(5) President of the European Patent Office
CA/PL 7/99 Orig.: German Munich, 2.3.1999 SUBJECT: Revision of the EPC: Articles 52(4) and 54(5) DRAWN UP BY: ADDRESSEES: President of the European Patent Office Committee on Patent Law (for opinion) SUMMARY
More informationSecond Medical Use Patents in Europe: Are the UK and Germany Swapping Approaches?
WHITE PAPER January 2019 Second Medical Use Patents in Europe: Are the UK and Germany Swapping Approaches? The UK Supreme Court s ruling in Warner Lambert v Actavis resulted from deliberations over the
More informationIntellectual Property Department Hong Kong, China. Contents
Intellectual Property Department Hong Kong, China Contents Section 1: General... 1 Section 2: Private and/or non-commercial use... 3 Section 3: Experimental use and/or scientific research... 3 Section
More informationSuzannah K. Sundby. canady + lortz LLP. David Read. Differences between US and EU Patent Laws that Could Cost You and Your Startup.
Differences between US and EU Patent Laws that Could Cost You and Your Startup Suzannah K. Sundby United States canady + lortz LLP Europe David Read UC Center for Accelerated Innovation October 26, 2015
More informationEnglish Language Translation Entry into New Zealand PCT National Phase
2009 Business Updates Request for postponement of acceptance under section 20(1) of the Patents Act 1953 Applicants may at any time prior to acceptance request that a patent application not be accepted
More informationWorking Guidelines Q238. Second medical use and other second indication claims
Working Guidelines by Thierry CALAME, Reporter General Sarah MATHESON and John OSHA, Deputy Reporters General Anne Marie VERSCHUR, Sara ULFSDOTTER and Kazuhiko YOSHIDA Assistants to the Reporter General
More informationEuropean Union Law Working Papers
Stanford Vienna Transatlantic Technology Law Forum A joint initiative of Stanford Law School and the University of Vienna School of Law European Union Law Working Papers No. 25 Skinny Labelling and (Indirect)
More informationThe EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal decides on dosage regimens (G2/08) and treatment by surgery (G1/07)
The EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal decides on dosage regimens (G2/08) and treatment by surgery (G1/07) Dr. Benjamin Quest and Dr. Franz-Josef. Zimmer The two recent decisions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal
More informationPlausibility, 2nd medical use and late amendments - The Dutch perspective after UK SC 14 Nov 2018 pregabalin case
20 November 2018 Pregabalin UCL Pregabalin UCL Plausibility, 2nd medical use and late amendments - The Dutch perspective after UK SC 14 Nov 2018 pregabalin case Judge Edger F. Brinkman, senior judge, Court
More informationINDIRECT INFRINGEMENT AND REPAIRS - EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE. Rachel Oxley Mewburn Ellis LLP, London, UK
INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT AND REPAIRS - EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE Rachel Oxley Mewburn Ellis LLP, London, UK OVERVIEW Repairs United Wire v Screen Repair Services Schütz v Werit Indirect Infringement Grimme v Scott
More informationSwitzerland. Esther Baumgartner Christoph Berchtold Simon Holzer Kilian Schärli Meyerlustenberger Lachenal. 1. Small molecules
Esther Baumgartner Christoph Berchtold Simon Holzer Kilian Schärli Meyerlustenberger Lachenal 1. Small molecules 1.1 Product and process claims Classic drug development works with small, chemically manufactured
More informationSecond medical use or indication claims
Question Q238 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: Egyptian National Group Second medical use or indication claims Eman MOHEY, Gamal ABOU ALI Ahmed ABOU ALI Date: May
More informationAn introduction to European intellectual property rights
An introduction to European intellectual property rights Scott Parker Adrian Smith Simmons & Simmons LLP 1. Patents 1.1 Patentable inventions The requirements for patentable inventions are set out in Article
More informationFrequently Asked Questions. Trade/service marks: What is a trade/service mark?
Frequently Asked Questions Trade/service marks: What is a trade/service mark? Is a distinctive sign that serves to distinguish the goods and/or services of one enterprise from those of other enterprises.
More informationSecond medical use or indication claims
Question Q238 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: Canada Second medical use or indication claims Matthew ZISCHKA Santosh CHARI Carol HITCHMANN Roseanne CALDWELL Charles
More informationPart II. Time limit for completing the International search. Application not searched
II.6. Time limit for completing the International search Art.18(1) PCT The International search report must be ready within the prescribed time limit. R42.1 PCT The International search report (or the
More informationHow patents work An introduction for law students
How patents work An introduction for law students 1 Learning goals The learning goals of this lecture are to understand: the different types of intellectual property rights available the role of the patent
More informationpct2ep.com Guide to claim amendment after EPO regional phase entry
pct2ep.com Guide to claim amendment after EPO regional phase entry Claim amendments in the EPO Guide to the issues to consider After a PCT application enters the EPO regional phase, and before any search
More informationRSC LAW GROUP NEWSLETTER
RSC LAW GROUP NEWSLETTER April 2015 Message from the editor Dear all, A number of events took place last year including the hugely popular case law seminar, which was held on 20 November at Burlington
More informationbiblio.ugent.be This item is the archived peer-reviewed author-version of:
biblio.ugent.be The UGent Institutional Repository is the electronic archiving and dissemination platform for all UGent research publications. Ghent University has implemented a mandate stipulating that
More informationQuestionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights. The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of:
The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Office: Republic of Poland Patent Office of the Republic of Poland Person to be contacted: Name: Piotr Czaplicki Title: Director,
More informationFINLAND Patents Act No. 550 of December 15, 1967 as last amended by Act No. 101/2013 of January 31, 2013 Enter into force on 1 September 2013
FINLAND Patents Act No. 550 of December 15, 1967 as last amended by Act No. 101/2013 of January 31, 2013 Enter into force on 1 September 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 General Provisions Section 1 Section
More information11th Annual Patent Law Institute
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Course Handbook Series Number G-1316 11th Annual Patent Law Institute Co-Chairs Scott M. Alter Douglas R. Nemec John M. White To order this book, call (800) 260-4PLI or fax us at
More informationEurope Divided Update on National Case Law in Europe
Europe Divided Update on National Case Law in Europe Leythem Wall 29 November 2011 European Patents 38 EPC Member States as of 1 January 2011 Centralized prosecution Bundle of national patents Articles
More informationQuestionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights. The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of:
The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Germany Office: Federal Ministry of Justice and for Consumer Protection / German Patent and Trademark Office Person to be contacted:
More informationLessons learnt 6 February 2015
Patent infringement Lessons learnt from patent case law in Europe in 2013 and 2014 Véron & Associés Seminar Paris Maison de la Recherche Sabine Agé Paris Lyon Patent infringement Bolar exemption (1/2)
More informationTREATY SERIES 2008 Nº 4. Act revising the Convention on the Grant of European Patents
TREATY SERIES 2008 Nº 4 Act revising the Convention on the Grant of European Patents Done at Munich on 29 November 2000 Ireland s instrument of accession deposited with the Government of Germany on 16
More informationREPUBLIC OF VANUATU BILL FOR THE PATENTS ACT NO. OF 1999
REPUBLIC OF VANUATU BILL FOR THE PATENTS ACT NO. OF 1999 Arrangement of Sections PART 1 PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS 1. Interpretation PART 2 PATENTABILITY 2. Patentable invention 3. Inventions not patentable
More informationDawn of an English Doctrine of Equivalents: immaterial variants infringe
Dawn of an English Doctrine of Equivalents: immaterial variants infringe November 2017 The Supreme Court reinvents patent infringement The Supreme Court s landmark judgment in Actavis v Eli Lilly is a
More informationAlchemy in the UK: the Supreme Court in Eli Lilly V Actavis transmutes sodium into potassium but will it provide gold for patentees?
WHITEHEAD AND JACKSON : ALCHEMY IN THE UK: THE SUPREME COURT IN ELI LILLY v ACTAVIS TRANSMUTES SODIUM INTO POTASSIUM : VOL 16 ISSUE 3 BSLR 135 Alchemy in the UK: the Supreme Court in Eli Lilly V Actavis
More informationVolume 6, Issue 1, April Patent Protection for Second and Further Medical Uses Under the European Patent Convention
Volume 6, Issue 1, April 2009 Patent Protection for Second and Further Medical Uses Under the European Patent Convention Abstract Eddy D Ventose * It was only eleven years after the European Patent Convention
More informationAUSTRIA Utility Model Law
AUSTRIA Utility Model Law BGBl. No. 211/1994 as amended by BGBl. Nos. 175/1998, 143/2001, I 2004/149, I 2005/42, I 2005/130, I 2005/151, I 2007/81 and I 2009/126 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
More informationEli Lilly v Actavis. Mark Engelman Head of Intellectual Property
Eli Lilly v Actavis Mark Engelman Head of Intellectual Property mark.engelman@hardwicke.co.uk Topics 1. Literalism 2. Ely Lilly v Actavis The Facts 3. Catnic Components Ltd v Hill & Smith Ltd [1982] RPC
More informationUtility Model Law I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Utility Model Law Federal Law Gazette 1994/211 as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 1998/175, I 2001/143, I 2004/149, I 2005/42, I 2005/130, I 2005/151, I 2007/81 and I 2009/126 I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Subject
More informationSection 1: General. This question does not imply that the topic of exclusions from patentability is dealt with in this question exhaustively.
Section 1: General 1. As background for the exceptions and limitations to patents investigated in this questionnaire, what is the legal standard used to determine whether an invention is patentable? If
More informationSupreme Court of the Netherlands. in the matter of:
Pharma and Pharmachemie; English translation of IEF 17241; www.ie-forum.nl/?showarticle=17241 ) 3 November 2017 First Chamber 15/04934 RM/EE Supreme Court of the Netherlands Judgment in the matter of:
More informationTRADE MARKS ACT, 1999
GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE S REPUBLIC OF BANGLADESH A DRAFT BILL OF THE PROPOSED TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999 Prepared in the light of the complete report made by the Bangladesh Law Commission recommending promulgation
More informationEUROPEAN PATENT LITIGATORS ASSOCIATION (EPLIT)
Litigators Asscociation EUROPEAN PATENT LITIGATORS ASSOCIATION (EPLIT) ACTAVIS V LILLY MILAN, 14 MAY 2018 EUROPEAN PATENT LITIGATORS ASSOCIATION Actavis UK Limited and others (Appellants) v Eli Lilly and
More informationHUNGARY Patent Act Act XXXIII of 1995 as consolidated on March 01, 2015
HUNGARY Patent Act Act XXXIII of 1995 as consolidated on March 01, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I INVENTIONS AND PATENTS Chapter I SUBJECT MATTER OF PATENT PROTECTION Article 1 Patentable inventions Article
More informationGeneral Information Concerning. of IndusTRIal designs
General Information Concerning Patents The ReGIsTRaTIon For Inventions of IndusTRIal designs 1 2 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 1. What is a patent? 4 2. How long does a patent last? 4 3. Why patent inventions?
More informationSoftware patenting in a state of flux
Software patenting in a state of flux Ewan Nettleton is a senior associate solicitor in the Intellectual Property Department at Bristows. He specialises in Intellectual Property Law with an emphasis on
More informationAttachment: Opinions on the Draft Amendment of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law of the People s Republic of China
March 31, 2009 To: Legislative Affairs Office State Council People s Republic of China Hirohiko Usui President Japan Intellectual Property Association Opinions on the Draft Amendment of the Implementing
More informationCurrent Patent Litigation Trends: UK and Germany
Volume 26, Number 7 July 2012 Reproduced with permission from World Intellectual Property Report, 26 WIPR 40, 07/01/2012. Copyright 2012 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com
More informationCHAPTER 53 PHARMACY AND POISONS ORDINANCE ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY PART II PHARMACY
2 CAP. 53 Pharmacy and Poisons LAWS OF CHAPTER 53 PHARMACY AND POISONS ORDINANCE ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY SECTION 1. Short title 2. Interpretation PART II PHARMACY 3. Qualification and
More informationNotwithstanding Article 29, any invention that is liable to injure public order, morality or public health shall not be patented (Article 32).
Japan Patent Office (JPO) Contents Section 1: General... 1 Section 2: Private and/or non-commercial use... 2 Section 3: Experimental use and/or scientific research... 3 Section 4: Preparation of medicines...
More informationTHE PATENT LAW 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS. Article 1. This Law shall regulate the legal protection of inventions by means of patents.
THE PATENT LAW 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 1 This Law shall regulate the legal protection of inventions by means of patents. Article 2 This Law shall also apply to the sea and submarine areas adjacent
More informationCentral Government Act The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958
Central Government Act The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 THE TRADE AND MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT, 1958 ACT NO. 43 OF 1958 [ 17th October, 1958.] An Act to provide for the registration and better protection
More informationThe Patents Act 1977 (as amended)
The Patents Act 1977 (as amended) An unofficial consolidation produced by Patents Legal Section 17 December 2007 UK Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office 1 Note to users
More informationNote: When any ambiguity of interpretation is found in this provisional translation, the Japanese text shall prevail.
Note: When any ambiguity of interpretation is found in this provisional translation, the Japanese text shall prevail. (Applied to any applications to register a patent term extension filed on or after
More informationThe Unitary Patent Plan Beta Update on National Case Law in Europe
The Unitary Patent Plan Beta Update on National Case Law in Europe Leythem Wall 28 November 2013 Declarations of Non-Infringement Article 15 of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement sets out the areas
More informationTrade Marks Act* (Act No. 11 of 1955, as last amended by Act No. 31 of 1997) ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
Trade Marks Act* (Act No. 11 of 1955, as last amended by Act No. 31 of 1997) ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section Short title... 1 Interpretation... 2 The Register Register of Trade Marks... 3 Application of
More informationBefore: MR. JUSTICE HENRY CARR Between:
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 2880 (Pat) Case No: HP-2014-000040 HP-2015-000012, HP-2015-000048 and HP-2015-000062 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
More informationComparative Analysis of the U.S. Intellectual Property Proposal and Peruvian Law
!!! Dangers for Access to Medicines in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: Comparative Analysis of the U.S. Intellectual Property Proposal and Peruvian Law ! Issue US TPPA Proposal Andean Community
More information4. COMPARISON OF THE INDIAN PATENT LAW WITH THE PATENT LAWS IN U.S., EUROPE AND CHINA
4. COMPARISON OF THE INDIAN PATENT LAW WITH THE PATENT LAWS IN U.S., EUROPE AND CHINA Provisions of the Indian patent law were compared with the relevant provisions of the patent laws in U.S., Europe and
More informationQuestionnaire May 2003 Q Scope of Patent Protection. Response of the UK Group
Questionnaire May 2003 Q 178 - Scope of Patent Protection Response of the UK Group 1.1 Which are, in your view, the fields of technology in particular affected by recent discussions concerning the scope
More informationReport on the Diplomatic Conference for the Revision of the European Patent Convention. Munich, November 20-29, 2000
REPORTS Report on the Diplomatic Conference for the Revision of the European Patent Convention Munich, November 20-29, 2000 By Ralph Nack (1) and Bruno Phélip (2) A. Background of the Diplomatic Conference
More informationKingdom of Bhutan The Industrial Property Act enacted on July 13, 2001 entry into force: 2001 (Part III, Sections 17 to 23: May 1, 2009)
Kingdom of Bhutan The Industrial Property Act enacted on July 13, 2001 entry into force: 2001 (Part III, Sections 17 to 23: May 1, 2009) TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I PRELIMINARY 1. Title 2. Commencement 3.
More informationBefore: LORD JUSTICE PATTEN LORD JUSTICE KITCHIN and LORD JUSTICE FLOYD Between:
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWCA Civ 1006 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION PATENTS COURT The Hon Mr Justice Arnold [2015] EWHC 2548
More informationSUPPLEMENTARY PROTECTION CERTIFICATES: THE CJEU ISSUES ITS DECISION IN TWO SEMINAL CASES
58 CASE COMMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY PROTECTION CERTIFICATES: THE CJEU ISSUES ITS DECISION IN TWO SEMINAL CASES DR MIKE SNODIN, DR JOHN MILES AND DR MICHAEL PEARS* Potter Clarkson LLP On 24 November 2011, the
More informationACTAVIS UK LTD v ELI LILLY & CO
38 [2016] R.P.C. 2 ACTAVIS UK LTD v ELI LILLY & CO COURT OF APPEAL Longmore, Kitchin and Floyd L.JJ.: 9-12 March and 25 June 2015 H1 [2015] EWCA Civ 555; [2016] R.P.C. 2 Patent European Patent Declaration
More informationSWITZERLAND Patent Law as last amended on March 20, 2009 ENTRY INTO FORCE: January 1, 2012
SWITZERLAND Patent Law as last amended on March 20, 2009 ENTRY INTO FORCE: January 1, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS First Title General Provisions Section 1 Requirements for Obtaining a Patent and Effects of
More informationBill 92 (2016, chapter 28)
FIRST SESSION FORTY-FIRST LEGISLATURE Bill 92 (2016, chapter 28) An Act to extend the powers of the Régie de l assurance maladie du Québec, regulate commercial practices relating to prescription drugs
More informationExclusions from patentability 15 Inventions contrary to public order or morality not patentable
New Zealand Patents Act 2013 Public Act 2013 No 68 Date of assent 13 September 2013 Reprint as at 14 September 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Title 2 Commencement Part 1 Preliminary Purposes and overview 3 Purposes
More informationTools and Pitfalls Recent Decisions from the EPO Boards of Appeal 20 November 2014
Tools and Pitfalls Recent Decisions from the EPO Boards of Appeal 20 November 2014 Presented by: Leythem A. Wall Overview Acceleration of Appeal Proceedings Double Patenting Admissibility of Appeals Added
More informationACT HAITI. (Passed 4 August 1955: Le Moniteur, 15 September 1955) PAUL E. MAGLOIRE, President of the Republic -
ACT HAITI (Passed 4 August 1955: Le Moniteur, 15 September 1955) PAUL E. MAGLOIRE, President of the Republic - Having regard to:- Articles 57 and 79 of the Constitution; The Act of 16 July 1923 on Narcotic
More informationBasic Patent Information from the USPTO (Redacted) November 15, 2007
Basic Patent Information from the USPTO (Redacted) November 15, 2007 What Is a Patent? A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the United States Patent and
More informationBRUNEI Patent Order 2011
BRUNEI Patent Order 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I PRELIMINARY 1. Citation, commencement and long title 2. Interpretation 3. Order to bind Government PART II ADMINISTRATION 4. Registrar of Patents and other
More informationPHARMACY AND DRUG ACT
Province of Alberta PHARMACY AND DRUG ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Current as of January 1, 2017 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer 7 th Floor, Park
More informationIsrael. Contributing firm Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer
Contributing firm Authors Nachman Cohen Zedek, Dor Cohen Zedek and Yossi Markovich Selection, clearance and registration Israel became party to the Madrid Protocol on September 1 2010. As of September
More informationREPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT GAZETTE ACTS SUPPLEMENT. Published by Authority NO. 28] FRIDAY, DECEMBER 21 [2012 REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT GAZETTE ACTS SUPPLEMENT Published by Authority NO. 28] FRIDAY, DECEMBER 21 [2012 First published in the Government Gazette, Electronic Edition, on 20th December 2012 at
More informationGENERIC EQUIVALENT DRUG LAW Act of Nov. 24, 1976, P.L. 1163, No. 259 AN ACT Relating to the prescribing and dispensing of generic equivalent drugs.
GENERIC EQUIVALENT DRUG LAW Act of Nov. 24, 1976, P.L. 1163, No. 259 AN ACT Cl. 35 Relating to the prescribing and dispensing of generic equivalent drugs. The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
More informationIP MANAGEMENT IN NIGERIA: TRADEMARKS & DESIGNS
IP MANAGEMENT IN NIGERIA: TRADEMARKS & DESIGNS The aim of this article is to inform practitioners and IP owners the possibilities available to them for the protection of trademarks and registered designs
More informationCompilation date: 24 February Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, Registered: 27 February 2017
Patents Act 1990 No. 83, 1990 Compilation No. 41 Compilation date: 24 February 2017 Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, 2016 Registered: 27 February 2017 This compilation includes commenced amendments
More informationUtility Models Act. Passed RT I 1994, 25, 407 Entry into force
Issuer: Riigikogu Type: act In force from: 01.01.2015 In force until: In force Translation published: 23.12.2014 Amended by the following acts Passed 16.03.1994 RT I 1994, 25, 407 Entry into force 23.05.1994
More informationof 25 June 1954 (Status as of 1 January 2017) para. 2) is not patentable as an invention. 7
English is not an official language of the Swiss Confederation. This translation is provided for information purposes only and has no legal force. Federal Act on Patents for Inventions (Patents Act, PatA)
More informationintellectual property law CARR ideas on Declaring dependence What s in a name? Get Reddy Working for statutory damages Intellectual Property Law
ideas on intellectual property law in this issue year end 2004 Declaring dependence Dependent patent claims and the doctrine of equivalents What s in a name? Triagra loses battle for trademark rights Get
More informationThe nuts and bolts of oppositions and appeals. Henrik Skødt, European Patent Attorney
The nuts and bolts of oppositions and appeals Henrik Skødt, European Patent Attorney Overview Preparing a notice of opposition. Responding to an opposition. Oral proceedings Filing an appeal notice and
More informationETHIOPIA A PROCLAMATION CONCERNING INVENTIONS, MINOR INVENTIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS PROCLAMATION NO. 123/1995 ENTRY INTO FORCE: May 10, 1995
ETHIOPIA A PROCLAMATION CONCERNING INVENTIONS, MINOR INVENTIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS PROCLAMATION NO. 123/1995 ENTRY INTO FORCE: May 10, 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE General Provisions 1. Short
More informationThe Same Invention or Not the Same Invention? Thorsten Bausch
The Same Invention or Not the Same Invention? Thorsten Bausch FICPI World Congress Munich 2010 CONTENTS The Same Invention or Not the Same Invention? Practical Problems The standard of sameness the skilled
More informationGLOBAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY NEWSLETTER IP AND PHARMA ISSUE 09/18
19 TH EDITION GLOBAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY NEWSLETTER 2 19 TH EDITION Introduction Welcome to the 19 th Edition of the Clifford Chance Global IP Newsletter. This newsletter focuses on patent law and especially
More informationSWEDEN PATENTS ACT No.837 of 1967 in the version in force from July 1, 2014
SWEDEN PATENTS ACT No.837 of 1967 in the version in force from July 1, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. General Provisions Article 1 Article 1a Article 1b Article 1c Article 1d Article 2 Article 3 Article
More informationPatent Term Extensions in Taiwan
This article was published in the Markgraf Ergänzende Schutzzertifikate - Patent Term Extensions on 2015. Patent Term Extensions in Taiwan I. Introduction Ruth Fang, Lee and Li Attorneys at Law The patent
More informationIntellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013 No., 2013
00-0-0-0 The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Presented and read a first time Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 0 No., 0 (Industry, Innovation, Climate Change,
More informationAUSTRALIA Patents Act 1990 Compilation date: 24 February 2017 Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, 2016 Registered: 27 February 2017
AUSTRALIA Patents Act 1990 Compilation date: 24 February 2017 Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, 2016 Registered: 27 February 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introductory 1 Short title 2 Commencement
More informationThe Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations: What patents are eligible to be listed on the register?
The Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations: What patents are eligible to be listed on the register? Edward Hore Hazzard & Hore 141 Adelaide Street West, Suite 1002 Toronto, ON M5H 3L5 (416)
More informationSelection Inventions the Inventive Step Requirement, other Patentability Criteria and Scope of Protection
Question Q209 National Group: Title: Contributors: AIPPI Indonesia Selection Inventions the Inventive Step Requirement, other Patentability Criteria and Scope of Protection Arifia J. Fajra (discussed by
More informationThe Consolidate Utility Models Act 1)
Consolidate Act No. 220 of 26 February 2017 The Consolidate Utility Models Act 1) Publication of the Utility Models Act, cf. Consolidate Act No. 190 of 1 March 2016 including the amendments which follow
More informationENGLISH SEMINAR OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BY IP GRADUATE SCHOOL UNION. Patent Law. August 2, 2016
ENGLISH SEMINAR OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BY IP GRADUATE SCHOOL UNION Patent Law August 2, 2016 Graduate School of Intellectual Property NIHON University Prof. Hiroshi KATO, Ph.D. katou.hiroshi@nihon-u.ac.jp
More informationPsychotropic Substances Act B.E (1975) BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX. Given on 4th January B.E. 2518; Being the 30th year of the present Reign.
Psychotropic Substances Act B.E. 2518 (1975) BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX. Given on 4th January B.E. 2518; Being the 30th year of the present Reign. His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej is graciously pleased
More informationFlorida Senate SB 518 By Senator Saunders
By Senator Saunders 1 A bill to be entitled 2 An act relating to controlled substances; 3 creating s. 831.311, F.S.; prohibiting the 4 sale, manufacture, alteration, delivery, 5 uttering, or possession
More informationLUXEMBOURG Patent Law as amended by the law of May 24, 1998 ENTRY INTO FORCE: June 21, 1998
LUXEMBOURG Patent Law as amended by the law of May 24, 1998 ENTRY INTO FORCE: June 21, 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE I GENERAL Art. 1. Definitions Art. 2. International Conventions TITLE II PATENTS FOR
More informationDoctrine of Equivalents: Recent Developments in Germany
Doctrine of Equivalents: Recent Developments in Germany Young EPLAW Congress Brussels 24 April 2017 Ole Dirks decisively different Introduction Legal framework: Art. 69 para. 1 EPC / Sec. 14 German Patents
More informationRecent developments in US law: Remedies and damages for improper patent listings in the FDA s Orange Book
Daniel G. Brown is a partner in the New York law firm Frommer Lawrence & Haug, LLP, and practises extensively in the Hatch Waxman area. He has been practising in New York since 1993 in the patent and intellectual
More information