Big Pharma is looking for solutions to the COVID-19 pandemic wherever it can find them, so drug repurposing is more important than ever, as research lawyers Jakob Wested and John Liddicoat argue.
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.
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.