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

EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal rejects patent that requires human embryos for implementation

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

In its decision of 25 November 2008 the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) considered four questions referred to it by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal concerning a patent application by Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) with claims to “a cell culture comprising primate embryonic stem cells…”

Leo v Sandoz UK Patents Court finds pseudopolymorph patent valid

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

In his judgment of 15 May 2009 Mr Justice Floyd considered novelty and obviousness attacks on Leo Pharma’s European Patent (UK) 0,679,154 directed to the monohydrate pseudopolymorph of the vitamin D analogue calcipotriol, which is used in the topical treatment of psoriasis

New regulatory requirements in the pharmaceutical sector

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • October 30 2008

Regulation (EC) No 19012006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use (hereinafter, “the Paediatric Regulation”) is intended to tackle the problems resulting from the absence of suitably adapted medicinal products for the paediatric population (including inadequate dosage information, non-availability to the paediatric population of therapeutic advances, suitable formulations and routes of administration as well as use of magistral or officinal formulations to treat the paediatric population

Pfizer’s arrangements with Unichem

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 30 2007

The High Court dismissed an application for an interim injunction by AAH Pharmaceuticals Limited and seven other pharmaceutical wholesalers to restrain the implementation of Pfizer Limited’s new single “direct to pharmacy” distribution arrangements for its prescription drugs in the UK

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

The government official report on patent protection for biotechnological inventions

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • Sweden
  • -
  • May 7 2008

The Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (9844EC) was implemented in Swedish law in 2004

Preliminary injunctions in pharmaceutical patent actions

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • Italy
  • -
  • May 13 2009

By a decision of 15 April 2009 issued in a preliminary injunction proceeding, the Court of Milan held that the mere grant of a Marketing Authorisation (MA) for a generic pharmaceutical product does not constitute an imminent threat of patent infringement

Patenting stem cells

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • Singapore
  • -
  • March 11 2009

The life sciences initiative in Singapore began in 2000 when it was identified as the fourth pillar of Singapore’s economy

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

English Patents Court holds long-wear contact lens patent invalid for insufficiency in Novartis AG & Others v Johnson & Johnson Medical Limited & Others

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 13 2009

In Novartis AG & Others v Johnson &Johnson Medical Limited & Others (2009EWHC 2029) the English Patents Court found that Johnson & Johnson’s product infringed the Patent, but that the Patent was invalid due to insufficiency