Home > News > Recent cases

BioNTech SE v CureVac SE [2024] EWHC 2538 (Pat)8 October 2024Michael Tappin KC and Michael Conway appeared for the successful Claimant (BioNTech) in this action seeking revocation of two of the Defendant’s (CureVac) patents. The patents, EP 668 and EP 755 were divisionals from a common earlier application and their descriptions were materially identical. They claimed artificial mRNA molecules in which the poly(A) tail was […]
Accord Healthcare v Regents of the University of California [2024] EWHC 2524 (Pat)8 October 2024Justin Turner KC appeared for the Claimants and Andrew Lykiardopoulos KC appeared for the Defendants in this action to revoke the patent and invalidate the SPC owned by the First Defendant and exclusively licensed to the Second Defendant. The patent in suit, EP 196, claimed the compound enzalutamide for the treatment of hormone refractory prostate […]
Pfizer v Glaxosmithkline Biologicals [2024] EWHC 2523 (Pat) 7 October 2024Tom Moody-Stuart KC appeared for the Claimant (Pfizer) and Dr Justin Turner KC appeared for the Defendant (GSK) in an action concerning vaccines for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). The proceedings concerned two GSK patents – EP 258 and EP 710. Both of these related to a vaccine for RSV. Pfizer brought these proceedings in an […]
Motorola Mobility v Ericsson [2024] EWCA Civ 110030 September 2024Michael Tappin KC appeared for the successful defendants (“Ericsson”) on an appeal by the claimants (“Lenovo”) against an order dismissing its application for an interim injunction to restrain Ericsson from doing acts which Lenovo alleged infringed one of its standard-essential patents (“SEPs”) until final judgment in the claim. Lenovo’s application arose out of a wider […]
Lunak Heavy Industries v Tyburn Film Productions [2024] EWHC 2312 (Ch)9 September 2024Jonathan Hill appeared for the Appellants (“Lunak” and “Lucasfilm”), and Tom Moody-Stuart KC and Joshua Marshall appeared for the Respondent (“Tyburn”) in this appeal against the order of Master Kaye (“the Master”) by which she rejected the Appellants’ application for the claim made against them in unjust enrichment to be summarily dismissed or alternatively struck […]