Auteurs

Matthew Royle, Ph.D.

Associé

Read More

Paul England, DPhil

Senior professional support lawyer

Read More

Dr. Gisbert Hohagen, Lic. en droit (Paris II/ Assas)

Associé

Read More

Judith Krens

Associé

Read More
Auteurs

Matthew Royle, Ph.D.

Associé

Read More

Paul England, DPhil

Senior professional support lawyer

Read More

Dr. Gisbert Hohagen, Lic. en droit (Paris II/ Assas)

Associé

Read More

Judith Krens

Associé

Read More

29 novembre 2018 |

The what, why and how of the UK Supreme Court Warner-Lambert decision

We look into the Supreme Court's judgment in Warner-Lambert v Actavis & Others which is expected to be its second far-reaching decision on patent law in less than eighteen months.

The case concerns Warner-Lambert's claim that Actavis would infringe its Swiss-form second medical use patent, for the use of pregabalin in the treatment of pain, and in particular neuropathic pain – by marketing Lecaent under a skinny label that excludes these indications. The validity of the patent being asserted was also challenged and this has raised the fundamental issue of quite how much information a patent needs to disclose for the invention to be held 'plausible'.

Importantly, the Supreme Court is also expected to decide on post-trial patent amendment and abuse of process, as well as validating claim interpretation.

Matthew Royle, Judith Krens, Gisbert Hohagen and Paul England examine what the Supreme Court's judgment rules about these issues and the implications this has for patenting in the life sciences sector.

Call To Action Arrow Image

Latest insights in your inbox

Subscribe to newsletters on topics relevant to you.

Subscribe
Subscribe

Événements connexes