UK Supreme Court issues Warner-Lambert v Actavis ruling
Warner-Lambert v Actavis: a summary from the UK Supreme Court hearing
Dmitrii_Guzhanin / iStockphoto.com
The UK Supreme Court’s decision in Warner-Lambert v Actavis is disappointing for pharmaceutical innovators, and enforcing second medical use patents may now be more challenging, lawyers have told LSIPR.
Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review (LSIPR) tracks the increasing challenges for intellectual property specialists in the rapidly evolving world of life sciences. From gene patents to stem cell research, we provide the very best news and analysis.
To continue reading this article and to access 4,500+ articles, our digital magazines and special reports published for LSIPR subscribers only then you will need a subscription.
If you are already subscribed please login.
Official LSIPR subscribers include:
Allen & Overy
Arnold & Siedsma
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch LLP (BSKB)
Carpmaels & Ransford
European Patent Office
George Washington Law School
Kirkland & Ellis International LLP
Marks & Clerk
NiKang Therapeutics Inc.
Powell Gilbert LLP
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
World Intellectual Property Office
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription we can add you into for FREE, please contact Atif at firstname.lastname@example.org.
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
Warner-Lambert, Pfizer, Actavis, Mylan, UK Supreme Court, pregabalin, Lyrica, second medical use patent, plausibility, sufficiency, pain treatment, patent