Under close scrutiny by regulators, the rules around second medical use patents vary from country to country, explains Jackie Mulryne of Arnold & Porter.
Plausibility in the context of the inventive step and sufficiency requirements can be a contentious issue before the European Patent Office. Markus Grammel of Grünecker reports.
Is the grant of a reasonable scope for antibody-related inventions at the European Patent Office a phenomenon of the past? Joachim Wachenfeld and Florian Grasser of Vossius & Partner report.
In a boost for generic pharma companies, a U-turn by the EU’s highest court removed protection for repurposed active substances, as Robert Stephen and Gareth Morgan of CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang explain.
As the UK Supreme Court reverses a Court of Appeal decision relating to sufficiency, the ruling leaves patent applicants in a potentially difficult position, argues David Fyfield of Charles Russell Speechlys.
The EPO’s May 2020 decision in G3/19, on the patentability of certain plants, was among the most controversial in the office’s history. Anna Gregson of Mathys & Squire explores the implications.
Yesterday’s UK Supreme Court decision in Kymab v Regeneron is expected to have profound implications for innovative life sciences companies, according to lawyers.
The CJEU’s many attempts to clarify the law around SPCs has created more questions than answers, as Katie Cambrook and Ben Millson of Bristows explain.
Despite dire warnings by the US Chamber of Commerce, the impact of the EU’s SPC waiver won’t be known for years, says Paul Williams of Lewis Silkin.
The CJEU’s decision in Royalty Pharma has provided much-anticipated guidance on supplementary protection certificates but has left a lot of uncertainty. Was this the best the CJEU could come up with? Beatriz San Martin of Arnold & Porter reports.