Home

News

Glaxo Wellcome UK Limited v Sandoz Limited [2017] EWCA Civ 2276 April 2017Martin Howe QC and Iona Berkeley represented the Respondents, “Sandoz”, in Glaxo’s Appeal against the decision of HHJ Hacon refusing permission to join two additional defendants to its claim for passing off. Glaxo alleged passing off on the basis that Sandoz had marketed asthma inhalers similar to Glaxo’s ‘Seratide’ inhalers in the UK. Glaxo had […]
Glaxo Wellcome UK Limited (T/A Allen & Hanburys), Glaxo Group Limited v Sandoz Limited, Sandoz International GMBH [2017] EWCA Civ 2276 April 2017Martin Howe QC and Iona Berkeley represented the Respondents, “Sandoz”, in Glaxo’s Appeal against the decision of HHJ Hacon refusing permission to join two additional defendants to its claim for passing off. Glaxo alleged passing off on the basis that Sandoz had marketed asthma inhalers similar to Glaxo’s ‘Seratide’ inhalers in the UK. Glaxo had […]
Varian Medical Systems International AG vs (1) Elekta Ltd, (2) Elekta Holdings Ltd [2017] EWHC 712 (Pat).6 April 2017James Abrahams QC and James Whyte successfully represented the Defendants (“Elekta”) in Varian’s claim for infringement of its patent for a combined MRI and radiotherapy device. Elekta denied that its combined MRI and radiotherapy machine infringed the Patent, and further claimed that the Patent was invalid for insufficiency, obviousness and added matter. The judge held […]
Unwired Planet International Ltd v (1) Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (2) Huawei Technologies (UK) Co. Ltd5 April 2017Adrian Speck QC, Isabel Jamal and Tom Jones appeared for the Claimant, Unwired Planet, and Andrew Lykiardopoulos QC appeared for the Defendant, Huawei, in a landmark action concerning the nature of a patent holder’s obligations to license Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. In a much-anticipated judgment, Birss J found […]
Congratulations to our Door Tenant Eleonora Rosati on her promotion4 April 20178 New Square congratulate Eleonora Rosati on her promotion to Associate Professor in Intellectual Property Law at the University of Southampton.
Congratulations to our Door Tenant Eleonora Rosati on her promotion.31 March 2017 8 New Square congratulate Eleonora Rosati on her promotion to Associate Professor in Intellectual Property Law at the University of Southampton.
Fujifilm v Abbvie [2017] EWHC 395 (Pat)28 March 2017Michael Tappin QC, Andrew Lykiardopoulos QC and Mark Chacksfield appeared for the Defendant (“AbbVie”) in this action concerning certain of AbbVie’s patents and applications for the anti-inflammatory drug adalimumab (marketed by AbbVie as “Humira”). The Claimants (“FKB” and “SB/Biogen”) sought declarations (the “Declarations”) to the effect that use of their biosimilar adalimumab products in certain […]
Charlotte May gives keynote address at the SPC Workshop in Munich23 March 2017Charlotte May QC was invited to give the keynote address at the SPC Workshop in Munich, organised by the Max Planck Institute in collaboration with the German Patent Office. The Workshop was attended by lawyers, patent attorneys, industry specialists and national patent office representatives from across Europe and involved a stimulating debate about all aspects […]
Teva UK Ltd v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp [2017] EWHC 539 (Pat)21 March 2017Charlotte May QC and Lindsay Lane represented the first claimant (“Teva”) in its successful challenge of the defendant’s (“Merck”) supplementary protection certificate (SPC) for an anti-viral drug marketed as Atripla. The SPC covered a combination of the active ingredient efavirenz together with emtricitabine and tenofovir. The Court agreed with Teva’s case that the SPC failed […]
Synthon B.V. v Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited [2017] EWCA Civ 14821 March 2017Andrew Lykiardopoulos QC represented the Appellant, “Synthon” in its appeal concerning Teva’s patent for glatiramer acetate (marketed as “Copaxone”). The Patent related to a method of making glatiramer acetate with limited levels bromine and free metal impurities. Synthon had challenged the validity of the patent on grounds of lack of novelty, obviousness and insufficiency. At […]