We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 63

ECJ decision in AHP Manufacturing BV v the Bureau voor de Industriele Eigendom (Case C-48207)

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • October 13 2009

The ECJ has accepted that the holder of a basic patent is entitled to one SPC regardless of whether other SPCs have already been granted to other holders of one or more other basic patents

UK Patents Court judgment in Dr Reddy’s Laboratories v Eli Lilly

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 31 2008

In a judgment handed down in October of this year, the Patents Court (Mr Justice Floyd) upheld EP (UK) 0,454,436 (the “Patent”) which is owned by Eli Lilly and which protects the schizophrenia drug olanzapine

End of German Olanzapine battle: Federal Supreme Court upholds patent

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • Germany
  • -
  • March 11 2009

On December 16, 2008 the Federal Supreme Court gave its judgment determining the validity of the Olanzapine patent, this was further to its revocation by the Federal Patent Court at first instance

Patents Court judgment in Ratiopharm GmbH and Sandoz Limited v Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • March 11 2009

The Patents Court (Mr Justice Floyd) handed judgment down on 16 December 2008 relating to two patents regarding formulations to achieve slow release of the opioid pain killing drug, oxycodone

Paedriatric SPC extension: zero or negative term SPCs

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • March 11 2009

Zero or negative term SPCs give rise to a unique disunity amongst the granting authorities in the European Member States

UK Patents Court judgment in Laboratorios Almirall SA v Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • March 11 2009

This case concerned a tit-for-tat revocation of two patents claiming the combinations of a particular anticholinergic with -agonists for treating respiratory illnesses

Status of the insufficiencyobviousness squeeze - an appraisal of the House of Lords’ Generics et al v Lundbeck judgments

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 1 2009

In February 2009 the House of Lords unanimously dismissed an appeal by a number of pharmaceutical companies against the Court of Appeal’s decision to not revoke Lundbeck’s escitalopram patent on grounds of insufficiency

Edwards Lifesciences AG v Cook Biotech Incorporated

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 17 2009

Mr Justice Kitchin handed down a decision only four weeks after the hearing, finding Cook’s patent invalid and not infringed by Edwards’ SAPIEN heart valve

The Wellcome Foundation Ltd v Paranova Pharmazeutika Handels GmbH

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • Austria
  • -
  • March 11 2009

Following a reference from the Austrian Supreme Court, the ECJ ruled on two questions relating to the conditions applicable to repackaging of pharmaceutical products in a parallel imports case

Recent judgments from the English court on obviousness

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 15 2009

On 17 November 2009, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in Leo Pharma v Sandoz