IP news & updates

This decision tests the general principle of UK patent law that if an invention is ‘seen’ before filing any patent application, it cannot be patented. It also demonstrates just how important it is to take extra care when testing invention prototypes in (or near) public spaces.

Usually when people think of trade marks, they picture the names or logos of famous brands, ready to be put on a product or its packaing to serve as an instantly recognisable badge of origin.

Care should be taken when using the phrase “useful for” when drafting claims in light of decision T 1170/16 of the EPO Board of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal in Emson v Hozelock ([2020] EWCA Civ 871) was asked to consider whether an invention relating to expandable hoses, which was relatively simple in technical terms, was obvious in view of a similar hose disclosed in a remote technical field.

Earlier this year, a decision was issued by the UKIPO tribunal in the opposition proceedings of Tiffany and Company (‘Tiffany & Co.’) v Tiffany Parmar ('Ms Parmar') (O-010-20).

The Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO have issued the decision in the G3/19 (Pepper) case ruling that plants or animals produced by essential biological processes (such as simple crossing and selection) are not patentable. 

The English High Court has recently given judgment in the case Beauty Bay and Dotcom Retail v Benefit Cosmetics [2019] EWHC 1150 (Ch), which serves as a useful reminder of how the courts should assess the likelihood of confusion in infringement cases based on the circumstances in which the allegedly infringing goods are sold.

This decision from the UK High Court relates to Genentech’s EP (UK) patent for an anti-IL-17 antibody and its use use in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriasis.

This recent decision from the UK High Court concerns European Patent (UK) No. 2657585 and UK Patent No. 2490276, which both relate to an expandable hose assembly.

Decision of the Appointed Person (Professor Ruth Annand) 20th March 2019 See: Decision The issue raised in this appeal was the distinctiveness of a mark consisting of a repetition of a word descriptive of the products claimed in the application.

This recent Supreme Court decision relates to obviousness of a dosage regime patent.

Trump International Limited is a UK company incorporated in October 2016. Though you may expect otherwise from the name, the company has no relationship with the now US President Donald Trump or businesses linked to him.

On the 25 July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) handed down its judgement in Teva v Gilead (C-121/17) on the topic of the interpretation of Article 3(a) of the regulation for supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products (the SPC Regulation). 

(1) Sandoz Limited, (2) Hexal AG v (1) G.D. Searle LLC, (2) Janssen Sciences Ireland UC

77M Limited v (1) Ordnance Survey Limited and (2) The Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office

We reported recently that the UK Supreme Court has issued a judgment in Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Limited.  The judgment is about the infringement by Actavis of Eli Lilly’s patent claiming an anti-cancer drug containing pemetrexed disodium and vitamin B12.

In the recent case of AstraZeneca Canada v Apotex, the Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously rejected the controversial "promise doctrine" in relation to the utility requirement under Canadian patent law.

The United Kingdom Supreme Court has issued a judgment this week in Eli Lilly and Company v Actavis UK Limited, establishing new law on the scope of claims for infringement purposes. 

This recent decision from the EPO’s Board of Appeal serves as a reminder of the importance of the timely assignment of an applicant’s right to claim priority.

Ian Alexander Shanks v (1) Unilever PLC (2) Unilever BV and (3) Unilever UK Central Resources Limited