Nap judgment: why parties involved in parallel EPO proceedings should inform the Patents Court about scheduling issues

Janet Strath

Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 2022, vol. 17, issue 6, 475-477

Abstract: In the latest chapter of the litigation involving Neurim’s second medical use patent relating to ‘Circadin’ (a prolonged-release formulation of melatonin), the Patents Court has held that Mylan—who had allegedly infringed Neurim’s European patent (‘EP702’) and had counterclaimed for revocation of EP702 on grounds of invalidity unsuccessfully before the UK court but successfully in opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office—was not issue-estopped from challenging the validity in the UK court of Neurim’s divisional patent (‘EP443’) with claims amended into a form ‘patentably indistinct’ from those of EP702.

Date: 2022
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jiplp/jpac043 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:jiplap:v:17:y:2022:i:6:p:475-477.

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice is currently edited by Eleonora Rosati, Stefano Barazza and Marius Schneider

More articles in Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().