Common themes, in particular in the context of second medical use claims and dosage regimes, are on the radar of the UK courts, as Jennifer Antcliff and Dennis Waller report.
Several significant patent cases were heard by the UK courts over the course of the last year and common themes are emerging which impact on the life sciences industry, in particular in the context of second medical use claims and dosage regimes.
One such theme, which runs throughout the judgments in Hospira v Novartis  EWHC 516(Pat) and Eli Lilly v Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy  EWHC 1737(Pat), is the question of what amounts to a disclosure of ‘effective’ treatment and the consequences which follow when assessing entitlement to priority and sufficiency.
While the standard itself may be familiar to many in this industry, the criterion to be applied in the context of patentability was hotly contested by the parties and explored in detail by Arnold J, who heard both cases at first instance.
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
Therapeutic use claims, Hospira v Novartis, effective treatment, disclosure, Alzheimer's