Search

The General Court ('GC') has upheld a European Union IP Office (EUIPO) Board of Appeal decision that had found a design for a wardrobe lacking individual character, thus declaring the design invalid under Article 6(1)(b) of the Community Design Regulation 6/2002/EC ('CDR'). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Cells transformed by human adenoviruses (Ad) exhibit differential capacities to induce tumours in immunocompetent rodents; for example, Ad12-transformed rodent cells are oncogenic whereas Ad5-transformed cells are not. The E1A gene determines oncogenic phenotype, is a transcriptional regulator and dysregulates host cell gene expression, a key factor in both cellular transformation and oncogenesis. To reveal differences in gene expression between cells transformed with oncogenic and non-oncogenic adenoviruses we have performed comparative analysis of transcript profiles with the aim of identifying candidate genes involved in the process of neoplastic transformation. Results Analysis of microarray data revealed that a total of 232 genes were differentially expressed in Ad12 E1- or Ad5 E1-transformed BRK cells compared to untransformed baby rat kidney (BRK) cells. Gene information was available for 193 transcripts and using gene ontology (GO) classifications and literature searches it was possible to assign known or suggested functions to 166 of these identified genes. A subset of differentially-expressed genes from the microarray was further examined by real-time PCR and Western blotting using BRK cells immortalised by Ad12 E1A or Ad5 E1A in addition to Ad12 E1- or Ad5 E1-transformed BRK cells. Up-regulation of RelA and significant dysregulation of collagen type I mRNA transcripts and proteins were found in Ad-transformed cells. Conclusion These results suggest that a complex web of cellular pathways become altered in Ad-transformed cells and that Ad E1A is sufficient for the observed dysregulation. Further work will focus on investigating which splice variant of Ad E1A is responsible for the observed dysregulation at the pathway level, and the mechanisms of E1A-mediated transcriptional regulation.

Conversant Wireless Licensing Sari v Apple Retail UK Ltd1 concerned a patent entitled "Computing device with improved user interface for application" for an invention developed to solve the problem of user interface constraints due to the small screen size of mobile phones in the late nineties/early noughties. Following a debate over whether the invention concerned mobile phones or computers in general or somewhere in between, the Patents Court confirmed that identity of the person skilled in the art can change where a patentee applies to amend its patent so as to narrow the technical field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Glaxo Wellcome UK Ltd v Sandoz Ltd [2019] EWHC 2545 (Ch), High Court of England and Wales, 4 October 2019 The High Court has dismissed an action for passing off bought by Glaxo against Sandoz in respect of use of the colour purple for its AirFluSal Forspiro inhaler. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a recent case involving a figurative trade mark consisting of three parallel stripes applied in any direction, the General Court confirmed that the registration was invalid andfound that Adidas hadfailed to prove that distinctive character had been acquired throughout the European Union based on the use made of the mark. This comment considers the judgment and its implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court of England and Wales on 27 March 2019 handed down judgment in the case of Actavis Group PTC EHF v ICOS Corp1 on appeal from the Court of Appeal. Finding in favour of the respondents, Acatvis, TEVA and My Ian, the courtupheld the Court of Appeals decision that a dosage patent for tadalafil in the treatment of male erectile dysfunction was invalid for lack of inventive step. This comment considers the judgment and its implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In its decision in Icescape Ltd v Ice-World International BV, the Court of Appeal has considered for the first time the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Actavis UK Ltd v Eli Lilly & Co on how patent claims should be construed in the context of infringement allegations. With this judgment, the Court of Appeal recognises expressly that the previous "Protocol Questions" should be abandoned and that from now on the "Actavis Questions" will be applied in order to establish infringement in a case where a variant from the claim achieves substantially the same effect in substantially the same way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Premier Alloy Wheels (UK) Ltd [2020] EWHC 2094 (Pat), 30 July 2020 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It was common ground (in L'Oréal Société Anonyme v RN Ventures') that s. 68 of the Patents Act 1977prevented the recovery of patent infringement costs by the proprietor of the exclusive licence but, in this particular case, the claimants consisted of both the patentee and the exclusive licensee. Asa matter of discretion, Mr Justice Henry Carr decided to reduce the overall amount recoverable by the claimants in order to reflect the purpose of s.68, namely to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the register by providing a costs sanction for failure to register an exclusive licence within six months of the parties entering into such a transaction. At the trial of the infringement claims, the judge upheld the patent infringement claim on normal principles of interpretation, but, applying the principles set out by the Supreme Court in Actavis v Eli Lilly,2 rejected L'Oréal's alternative case based on the doctrine of equivalents. He did not, however, accept RN Ventures' invitation to apply the German doctrine of "deliberate selection" to equivalents in the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Madine (t/a Nico) v Leanne Phillips (t/a Leanne Alexandra) and Pauline Phillips [2017] EWHC 3268 (IPEC), 13 December 2017 The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) has held that the unregistered UK design right in two wedding dress designs owned by the claimant—Thelma Madine, a wedding dressmaker who rose to fame after appearing in Channel 4's My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding —was infringed by a wedding dress and china figurine of a girl wearing such a dress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the course of reaching its decision in Actavis v ICOS, the Court of Appeal considered the question of what made an invention "obvious to try", and found that nothing made the claimed dosage regimen of tadalafil inventive, in the light of the prior art. The question of whether a routine pre-clinical and clinical trial programme had a fair prospect of success was dismissed, as the claimed dosage regime simply equated to the dose at the lower limit of a therapeutic plateau, and therefore was something that would have been investigated as a matter of routine in Phase lib dose ranging studies during a clinical trial programme. This comment considers the judgment and its implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In its decision in London Taxi Co Ltd v Frazer-Nash Research Ltd,1 the Court of Appeal has upheld a decision by the High Court in 2016 that the shape of the traditional London black cab lacked "distinctive character" and was not a "valid registered trade mark This comment will examine the possible consequences of this judgment and the difficulties faced by shape mark applicants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mr Justice Henry Carr, in the UK Patents Court, granted the declaration sought by the claimants that the dosage regimes for the biosimilar adalimumab products they intended to launch in Europe were obvious and/or anticipated at the claimed priority dates o f certain European (UK) patents owned by AbbVie relating to the antibody adalimumab, sold under the trade mark HUMIRA. An array o f legal issues arose, including entitlement to priority. In this case, the inventors o f the patent subject-matter were US and German employees, the patents at issue had been abandoned by AbbVie prior to trial, and therefore complex issues o f UK, US and German law were involved. This comment considers the judgment and its implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Idenix Pharmaceuticals Inc v Gilead Sciences Inc,' the Court of Appeal confirmed that the threshold for plausibility w as low but was nevertheless a potent attack on both obviousness and insufficiency. The court also provided guidance on what constitutes common general knowledge, particularly in the context of information presented in scientific papers and at conferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the recent ruling of the Patents Court on the validity of erectile dysfunction drug patents. Of particular interest is the guidance provided by Mr Justice Birss on the role of prior art and the burden of establishing legal priority, the "obvious to tty " test, and whether a "clearing the way " revocation action brought by a generic manufacturer can be inferred as a threat to perform an infringing act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mr Justice Henry Carr, in the UK Patents Court, held that three European (UK) patents owned by the US biopharmaceutical company Cubist were invalid on grounds of obviousness. An array of legal issues arose, including the law of priority and the strictness of the legal test. In the latter respect, Carr J examined the "same invention" test under art.87(1) EPC and its growing prominence as a factor in the English law. In this case, the underlying facts provided an interesting comparative as the first priority document failed the test, whereas the second passed it. This comment considers the judgment and its implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) v Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd [2017] EWHC 2629 (Pat), High Court of England and Wales, 26 October 2017 In light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Actavis UK Ltd v Eli Lilly and Co [2017] UKSC 48, the Patents Court has considered the correct approach to the interpretation of patent claims and Mr Justice Arnold has held that the doctrine of equivalents does not apply when assessing novelty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has dismissed an appeal brought by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) against a decision of the General Court in an opposition case concerning the figurative sign CACTUS OF PEACE CACTUS DE LA PAZ. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a recent case involving the correct construction of s.92(l) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, the Supreme Court ruled that this section applies to both grey goods and counterfeit goods and, therefore, persons dealing in grey market products may be liable to criminal prosecution. This comment considers the judgment and its implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court Case Warner-Lambert Company LLC v. Generics (UK) Ltd. (t/a Mylan) & Ors which deals with the intellectual property infringement.

The article focuses on the U.S. court case HTC v. Nokia, which dealt with patent infringement, and provides a comparison of British and U.S. patent and copyright law. Topics include international patent exhaustion, the first sale doctrine, and the obviousness doctrine. Information is provided on copyright novelty and patent invalidity.