Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice Advance Access originally published online on June 12, 2008
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 2008 3(8):491-493; doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpn109
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© The Author (2008). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved
Current Intelligence |
Biogen insufficiency: does it still have teeth?
Howrey LLP, London
H. Lundbeck A/S v Generics (UK) Limited, Arrow Generics Limited, Teva UK Limited and Teva Pharmaceuticals Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 311 CA (Civ Div); Biogen Inc. v Medeva Plc [1997] RPC 1 HL
The Court of Appeal recently overturned a first instance decision of the Patents Court when it found Lundbeck's claims to its patented enantiomer product escitalopram valid and, in so doing, shed new light on the interpretation of the House of Lords' ruling in Biogen v Medeva on insufficiency.
Correspondence: Email: inmanp{at}howrey.com