The patenting of personalised healthcare inventions has proved problematic in a number of jurisdictions, but various aspects of these inventions are patentable in Europe, as Laurence Gainey of HGF explains.
Depending on the facts and the content of the applications, an Arrow-type declaration could be made on grounds of insufficiency against divisional applications, say David Holt and Tony Proctor of Potter Clarkson.
BIO-Europe heads to Scandinavia for the first time, as Copenhagen plays host in November. LSIPR finds out more.
Several recent cases from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit offer guidance on navigating the §101 legal framework with respect to CRISPR patent claims, as Pat Carson and Mira Atanassova Mulvaney of Kirkland & Ellis report.
The Milan Court has issued an important ruling clarifying the rules governing the activities of active pharmaceutical ingredient manufacturers in Italy, as Gabriel Cuonzo and Luca Pellicciari of Trevisan & Cuonzo report.
Frank Kalkbrenner was selected in the LSIPR 50 2018 publication for his influence on the life sciences industry. He featured in the investment section, as LSIPR reports.
The European Commission’s proposed export waiver for supplementary protection certificates is likely to face opposition and may be delayed by EU parliamentary changes, says Trevor Cook of WilmerHale.
Martyn Andrews was selected in the LSIPR 50 2018 publication for his influence on the life sciences industry. He featured in the legal section, as LSIPR reports.
Alisa Harbin was selected in the LSIPR 50 2018 publication for her influence on the life sciences industry. She featured in the legal section, as LSIPR reports.
Following a CJEU decision in July, and with two more cases on the horizon, Joel Beevers and Michael Pears of Potter Clarkson report on whether an active ingredient (or combination of active ingredients) is ‘protected by a basic patent’, as required for a supplementary protection certificate.