When justice needs to be seen to be done: Paul Harris, Head of Litigation at Dehns, provides a case analysis of ABP Technology Ltd v Voyetra Turtle Beach.
READ MORECan adding the company name to a mark avoid infringement?: Lauren Palmer, Legal Assistant at Dehns provides a case analysis of Combe International v Dr Wolff
Arrow declaration misses its target: Paul Harris, Head of Litigation at Dehns, considers the extent to which the Patents Court will go in order to provide a “spin-off value” for one party, in the courts of another jurisdiction.
Dehns have previously discussed the concept of plausibility and how much experimental data is needed for patent applications in Europe, which is relevant to both sufficiency and inventive step. In an ideal world all the relevant data would be contained in the application as filed. However, this is not always possible, particularly if new prior art is found during prosecution that necessitates the formulation of new comparative data to support an inventive step.
A balance must be struck between the competing interests of generic and innovator companies to ensure the healthcare system works at its best. At the moment, that longstanding balance has been disrupted by the Federal Circuit and the ripples are still being felt in the generics industry, even if the court has tried to take some of the sting out of its earlier actions.
In this episode of The IP Podcast, Senior Associate Daniel Rowe discusses a topic relating to the biotechnology and pharma industries: repurposed drugs and skinny labelling.
Tune in to hear Dan answer:
All these questions and more, answered in less than 20 minutes!
The contributions of both generic and innovator companies to our healthcare systems are essential, and a balance must be struck between their competing interests to ensure the system works at its best.
Read Neil Campbell’s latest thinking on how far a commercial product placed on the market becomes part of the state of the art. Neil will be speaking at LSPN in San Francisco on 1 November.
The purpose of patents is to drive innovation. However, many jurisdictions accept that a patent term of 20 years from filing is not always sufficient to compensate an innovator for the expense and risk of developing certain types of product. Many countries in Europe (including the UK despite its exit from the EU) have adopted an alternative approach to compensating for lost patent term. This new right is known as a “Supplementary Protection Certificate” (SPC) and although quite limited in scope, it can provide highly valuable protection since it comes into force at the expiry of the patent and is sharply focused on protecting the commercial produc
As many in the life sciences and chemical sectors await the G2/21 decision, Jonathan Bailey, Associate in the Dehns Chemical Group, discusses how much experimental data is needed for patent applications in Europe.
Invention harvesting, or invention mining, is an important process for any company looking to build or expand a patent portfolio.
Subscribe here for updates on IP news, events and webinars.
|