Insights

It was great to share pharmaceutical patenting insights with the panel and our audience at the “Patent Challenges in the Pharma Industry” session of yesterday’s Innovation & IP Forum in Paris.

In a surprising turn of events, on 5 December 2018 a Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) decided that plants which are the products of essentially biological processes are not excluded from patentability. The decision (T 1063/18) is a twist in a long-running saga, but may well not be the final word on the matter.

On 14 September 2018 the UK Supreme Court unanimously opined that the marketing of generic pregabalin by Actavis would not have been an infringement of Warner-Lambert’s claims directed to a further medical use of pregabalin, namely for the treatment of pain. The judgment, summarised in an earlier post, dealt for the first time with the issue of how infringement of ‘second medical use’ patents should be assessed in the UK. This article explores the implications of this aspect of the judgment and its potential impact on the value of second medical use patents.

As anyone who has sought trade mark protection in Canada will know, the process can be significantly more laborious and time consuming than in many other jurisdictions, not least because of the need to identify, in respect of every term in the specification, whether the mark is in use, is intended to be used, or is in use and registered abroad. This can lead to a long-winded and complicated process for most trade mark owners, who often file applications covering both goods/services which they currently sell/offer, and those which they intend to supply/offer in the foreseeable future. An entire application can be held up until the use requirements have been satisfied in respect of all the terms claimed by the specification.

I begin with an admission: I am hopelessly addicted to the long-running UK talent show The X Factor. Every year, I tell myself that I won’t watch it and every year without fail I find myself sucked in once again.

This year has been no different but, with the winner due to be announced on 2nd December (my money is on Anthony), there is not long to go until I can reclaim my Saturday and Sunday evenings.

I begin with an admission: I am hopelessly addicted to the long-running UK talent show The X Factor. Every year, I tell myself that I won’t watch it and every year without fail I find myself sucked in once again.

Congratulations! You’ve successfully made it through the trade mark application procedure, and your trade mark has been officially registered.
This certainly feels like a conclusion, but it isn’t the end of the story. For instance, here are five ways you could actually end up losing your registered trade mark rights.

Gym-goers in the United Kingdom have become well acquainted with “spinning” classes in recent years, and most consumers will be familiar with the concept of a group of fitness fanatics pedalling away to a heavy beat on exercise bikes, under the watchful oversight of an instructor.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has handed down a decision in Boston Scientific (C‑527/17) clarifying that Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) cannot rely on a medical device authorisation. Consequently, a product categorised as a ‘medical device’ cannot benefit from an SPC, regardless of whether or not it incorporates an active ingredient.