Teva UK Ltd v Gilead Sciences Inc

doi:10.1093/rpc/rcz009

Teva UK Ltd v Gilead Sciences Inc

Reports of Patent Design and Trade Mark Cases ◽

10.1093/rpc/rcz009 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 136 (1) ◽

pp. 49-60

Keyword(s):

Active Ingredients ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

Basic Patent

Abstract Supplementary protection certificates – Anti-retroviral medication – Validity – Combination of active ingredients – Construction of art.3(a) of the SPC Regulation – Whether product “protected by the basic patent in force” – Whether extent of protection the relevant test – Issue referred to Court of Justice – Interpretation and application of judgment of Court of Justice

Download Full-text

TEVA UK LIMITED v GILEAD SCIENCES, INC

Reports of Patent Design and Trade Mark Cases ◽

10.1093/rpc/rcaa021 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 137 (3) ◽

pp. 163-186

Author(s):

Keyword(s):

Active Ingredients ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

Basic Patent ◽

Court Of Appeal

Abstract H1 Supplementary protection certificates – Anti-retroviral medication – Validity – Combination of active ingredients – Construction of art. 3(a) of the SPC Regulation – Whether product “protected by the basic patent in force” – Whether extent of protection the relevant test – Issue referred to Court of Justice – Interpretation and application of judgment of Court of Justice – Appeal to Court of Appeal

Download Full-text

Sandoz & Hexal v Searle & Janssen Sciences Ireland: What is the formula for patent term extensions?

Journal of Generic Medicines The Business Journal for the Generic Medicines Sector ◽

10.1177/1741134317713802 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 13 (4) ◽

pp. 219-221

Author(s):

Chris Hayes

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Pharmaceutical Product ◽

The European Union ◽

High Court ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

Patent Term ◽

Basic Patent ◽

Commercially Important ◽

Definition Of ◽

The Uk

In Sandoz Ltd & Hexal AG v G.D. Searle LLC & Janssen Sciences Ireland UC [2017] EWHC 987 (Pat), the UK High Court held that an active ingredient in a pharmaceutical product that was claimed only by reference to a Markush formula and not expressly referred to in the patent was “protected” by a basic patent for the purposes of obtaining a patent term extension under the European Union Supplementary Protection Certificate Regulations. This decision will be welcomed by practitioners in adding some clarity to the interpretation of previous decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union relating to the definition of what is protected by a basic patent in this extremely commercially important and fast-moving area of jurisprudence. The implication of this decision is discussed further in this report.

Download Full-text