The Australian government has made numerous claims for damages against patentees for savings forgone when an interlocutory/preliminary injunction delays a generic's launch but the patent is invalidated or there is a finding of non-infringement.
Generic drug makers are watching two cases that will determine whether pharmaceutical firms can deduct—rather than capitalise—legal fees for defending against patent infringement suits, say Carina Federico and Anne Li of Crowell & Moring.
Certain problems with the patent opposition process need to be addressed in order to protect patent owners, say Alejandro Luna and Luz Elena Elias of Olivares.
Government-led schemes to incentivise patents are leading to delays and prejudice against legitimate applicants. Tyron Grant of Spoor and Fisher explains how South Africa is tackling the problem.
The long-running legal saga between the pharma giant and the NHS as well as generic drug makers has developed further, as Darren Smyth of EIP explains.
The pharma company’s arguments focusing on ‘inventive step’ failed to convince a London court that the Israeli generic drug maker had infringed, explains Azadeh Vahdat of EIP.
Safe harbour provisions can be relied on but their boundaries are still being defined, explain Jeanna Wacker and Tasha Francis Gerasimow of Kirkland & Ellis.
Why does Japan have no reverse payments culture? Takanori Abe of Abe & Partners unpicks a complex issue.
The case reinforced the need for interim injunction applications to be made as quickly as possible, explains Lydia Birch of EIP.
South Africa’s Supreme Court has declared regulations on complementary medicines invalid, explain Kareema Shaik and Jenny Pienaar of Adams & Adams.