An attempt to obtain a supplementary protection certificate ended up raising the bar to achieving this coveted IP, as Joel Beevers and Michael Pears of Potter Clarkson explain.
The rush to open access to IP-protected tech, medicines and devices in the fight against COVID-19 could cause problems later, argues MaryAnne Armstrong of Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch.
In the high stakes world of life sciences, the strength of a company’s IP portfolio can determine the value of a corporate transaction, argue Jonathan Harris and Nisan Zaghi of Axinn, and Ian Lodovice of Biogen.
Amid confusion over patent eligibility, US life sciences IP owners should consider trade secret law when building their IP protection strategy, argues John A Stone of DeCotiis, FitzPatrick, Cole & Giblin.
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.
As opportunistic price-gougers look to capitalise on the COVID-19 pandemic, brands such as 3M have turned to trademark law to try and stop them. Brian Michalek and Erin Westbrook of Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr report.
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.