Litigation

20.07.2023

Chemistry

A referral, G1/23 has been made to the Enlarged Board of Appeal to clarify when a disclosure to the public is an enabling disclosure via the interpretation of Decision G1/92.

The established case law for deciding the extent to which the prior use of a product is “made available to the public” stems from an earlier decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (G1/92).

15.02.2023

The route to the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and the Unified Patent (UP) system has experienced numerous twists and turns over the years since its initial inception.  However, we are now reaching the final stages of preparation. Despite being highly experienced individuals, part of the preparation for the UPC is the training of new individuals who are appointed to be UPC judges.

13.02.2023

Derived from Arrow v Merck,[1] an “Arrow” declaration is a declaratory judgement that a product, process or use would have been obvious at the priority or filing date of a granted patent, and so could not be held to infringe said patent.  A successful Arrow declaration effectively grants the claimant a “Gilette defence”,[2] whereby they can argue that, if the subsequently granted patent is infringed by their product, process or use, the patented invention must itself not be novel.

These declarations offer legal certainty, often in the pharmaceutical field, where third parties wish to sell generic copies of drugs for which a patent has expired.  Specifically, they allow for determination of patent infringement before the patent has been granted.  The recent judgement of Teva v Novartis [2022] EWCA[3] poses an interesting question, however, as to the applicability and persuasiveness of UK courts’ Arrow declarations in foreign jurisdictions. 

24.10.2022

We are delighted to celebrate our ranking as a leading Intellectual Property firm in Chambers 2023 rankings. This year's ranking marks the eleventh consecutive year in which WP Thompson has been recognised as leading firm by Chambers.

09.10.2020

Creative and Brands

Francesco Simone believes an absurd conclusion was averted on appeal. R 1524/2019-2, The Procter & Gamble Company v Trademarks Solution Sp.zo.o. Sp.k., EUIPO, 28th May 2020

06.04.2020

Creative and Brands

In its ruling in Case C 371/18, Sky and Others the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) provided welcomed guidance in relation to the concept of bad faith and the requirement of clarity and precision of the specification of goods and services.