header-logo header-logo

Patent

27 November 2015
Issue: 7678 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Actavis Group PTC EHF and another v Eli Lilly and Company [2015] EWHC 3294 (Pat), [2015] All ER (D) 145 (Nov)

The Patents Court considered the claimant company’s challenge to a patent that disclosed a second medical use of the drug atomoxetine, also known as tomoxetine, for use in treating ADHD. It held that, among other things, the patent was not obvious and nor insufficient, and hence the claim for revocation would be dismissed.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Moore Barlow—Jess Ready & Natasha Jones

Moore Barlow—Jess Ready & Natasha Jones

Commercial property and corporate teams expand in Southampton

Watershed—Rob Elliott

Watershed—Rob Elliott

Employment firm expands capability with experienced hire

Devonshires—Aoife Murphy & Mandeep Sahota

Devonshires—Aoife Murphy & Mandeep Sahota

Housing management and property litigation team bolstered by partner hires

NEWS
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
The long-awaited Getty Images v Stability AI judgment arrived at the end of last year—but not with the seismic impact many expected. In this week's issue of NLJ, experts from Arnold & Porter dissect a ruling that is ‘historic’ yet tightly confined
back-to-top-scroll