Home > News > Recent cases

Philip Morris v Nicoventures [2023] EWHC 2616 (Pat)25 October 2023Andrew Lykiardopoulos KC appeared for the successful claimants (together “PMI”) in a patent validity action brought against the defendants (together “BAT”). PMI sought to revoke BAT’s patent (“the Patent”) on grounds of: (i) anticipation; (ii) obviousness; (iii) added matter (in light of BAT’s conditional amendments), and sought an Arrow declaration. BAT counterclaimed for infringement. The […]
EnOcean v Far Eastern & TLC [2023] EWHC 2615 (IPEC)24 October 2023Michael Conway appeared for the Claimant and Jonathan Hill appeared for the Defendants in a patent infringement and validity action. Only validity was in issue, as the Defendants accepted that their product, the Quinetic Wireless Switch, fell within two claims of the Claimant’s patent (“the Patent”). The Defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the Patent on […]
Abbott Diabetes v Dexcom [2023] EWHC 2591 (Ch)18 October 2023Daniel Alexander KC, James Whyte and Jennifer Dixon appeared for the claimant (“Abbott”) against the defendant (“Dexcom”), in the third trial in a series of patent infringement trials concerning continuous glucose monitoring (“CGM”) systems. Dexcom sought to revoke Abbott’s patent (the “Patent”) on grounds of: (i) added matter; (ii) insufficiency; (iii) anticipation; and (iv) obviousness. […]
Astellas Pharma v Teva Pharmaceutical [2023] EWHC 2571 (Pat)17 October 2023Charlotte May KC appeared on behalf of two sets of defendants (“Teva” and “Sandoz”) in patent infringement proceedings brought by the claimant (“Astellas”). Teva and Sandoz sought to revoke the patent on grounds of: (i) insufficiency; (ii) obviousness; and (iii) added matter. The patent related to a modified release (“MR”) formulation for a drug, mirabegron, […]
Chiaro Technology v Mayborn [2023] EWHC 2417 (Pat)5 October 2023Lindsay Lane KC appeared on behalf of the Claimant (“Chiaro”) in proceedings brought against the Defendant (“Mayborn”) for infringement of three of Chiaro’s registered designs. The three designs had been incorporated into the same product, namely a wearable breast pump for nursing mothers. Mayborn’s allegedly infringing product was a competing wearable breast pump. The judge, […]