UPC after one month: Life sciences cases
jarrow153 / Shutterstock.com
Despite a rocky start, with case-management issues and plenty of scepticism from stakeholders, there is much to applaud in the UPC’s first four months, write Sebastian Moore and John Lao of Herbert Smith Freehills.
The first four months of operation of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) was a success.
After so many years in the making and the resulting political compromises made to get the project over the line, there was some scepticism as to the extent to which stakeholders would avail themselves of the court and the new European patent with unitary effect (the Unitary Patent).
Contrary to expectations, stakeholder participation has been high, and the court has made an emphatic start, with 43 orders being made already over a diverse and interesting range of applications and issues.
Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review (LSIPR) tracks the increasing challenges for intellectual property specialists in the rapidly evolving world of life sciences. From gene patents to stem cell research, we provide the very best news and analysis.
To continue reading this article and to access 4,500+ articles, our digital magazines and special reports published for LSIPR subscribers only then you will need a subscription.
If you are already subscribed please login.
Official LSIPR subscribers include:
Allen & Overy
Arnold & Siedsma
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch LLP (BSKB)
Carpmaels & Ransford
European Patent Office
George Washington Law School
Kirkland & Ellis International LLP
Marks & Clerk
NiKang Therapeutics Inc.
Powell Gilbert LLP
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
World Intellectual Property Office
Unified Patent Court, UPC, Unitary Patent, Herbert Smith Freehills, preliminary injunction, myStromer v Revolt Zycling, 10x Genomics, NanoString, Sanofi