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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 189

Generics v Lundbeck - distinguishing the sufficiency requirements for product and process claims
  • Gowling WLG
  • United Kingdom
  • May 19 2008

In Generics v Lundbeck, the Court of Appeal provided important guidance on the judgment of the House of Lords in Biogen v Medeva regarding the scope of protection to which an inventor is entitled and the enabling disclosure the specification must provide to support the claims in the patent


Dr Reddy v Eli Lilly: the Court of Appeal consigns the old UK legal test for the validity of selection patents to history and looks to Europe for the answer
  • Gowling WLG
  • United Kingdom
  • January 28 2010

Selection patents disclose a class of compounds along with a claim that the members of that class have a specific feature or quality


Implemention of “Bolar” in the EU
  • Gowling WLG
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • October 31 2007

In Europe, Directive 200427EC (amending Directive 200183EC) introduced into European Union legislation for the first time an exemption from patent infringement for conducting certain developmental work pre-patent expiry (the EU ‘Bolar’ exemption


Court overturns PMPRB's decisions in respect of the medicine copaxone
  • Gowling WLG
  • Canada
  • November 18 2009

On November 12, 2009, Justice Hughes of the Federal Court allowed two judicial review applications of Teva Neuroscience G.P.-S.E.N.C. in respect of two decisions made by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board


Celgene v. Canada
  • Gowling WLG
  • Canada
  • June 24 2009

Celgene is the current owner of several patents relating to thalidomide


Shire & Cephalon v. Apotex
  • Gowling WLG
  • Canada
  • May 8 2008

The Court dismissed the application on the basis that the allegation that the patent was invalid due to anticipation, obviousness and inutility was justified


Merck triumphs as new and inventive dosing regimen held patentable
  • Gowling WLG
  • United Kingdom
  • May 29 2008

Actavis sued to revoke Merck's patent with a second medical use claim (in the so-called 'Swiss form') for the use of finasteride in the preparation for a drug to treat androgenic alopecia with a lower dosage than disclosed in the prior art


Ranbaxy v Pfizer; appeal of interlocutory motion in 55.2
  • Gowling WLG
  • Canada
  • July 13 2007

At the trial division, the innovator succeeded in a motion to amend its Notice of Application for a second time, as its initial amendments had been based on misleading information from the generic company


Pfizer v Ranbaxy; 55.2 proceeding; October 5, 2007 - atorvastatin
  • Gowling WLG
  • Canada
  • October 25 2007

The trial judge granted prohibition in respect of one patent claiming a novel crystalline form of atorvastatin (the "crystalline form patent") and denied prohibition in respect of another patent claiming a novel process for making atorvastatin (the "process patent"


Arrow hits a bullseye against Merck’s divisional patent applications
  • Gowling WLG
  • United Kingdom
  • August 20 2007

This is a dispute between Arrow Generics Limited (“Arrow”) and Merck & Co. Inc (“Merck”