Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2012] All ER (D) 45 (Aug)
Neutral Citation: [2012] EWHC 2290 (Pat)
Court: Chancery Division, Patents Court
Judge:

Warren J

Representation Tom Mitcheson (instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse) for the claimant.
  Daniel Alexander QC and Mark Chacksfield (instructed by Powell Gilbert LLP) for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 3 August 2012

Catchwords

European Union - Patent - Industrial and commercial property - Supplementary protection certificate - Defendant being granted patent by European Patent Office - Claimant developing antibody - Claimant commencing proceedings in Patents Court seeking revocation of patent - Appeal outstanding in Court of Appeal - Claimant seeking declaration that any supplementary protection certificate (SPC) which might be granted to defendant in respect of patent based upon any marketing authorisation (MA) obtained by claimant for the claimant's antibody would be invalid - Defendant applying to strike out claim - Whether impermissible for person to apply for SPC based upon MA obtained by another person when two persons had no connection with each other - Whether failure of patent to specify or identify claimant's antibody in clams meant valid SPC could not be obtained even where patent upheld as valid - Council Regulation (EC) 469/2009.

The Case

European Union Patent. The Chancery Division, Patents Court, refused the claimant's application for an immediate reference to the Court of Justice and the defendant's application to strike out the claim, in circumstances where the claimant sought a declaration that any supplementary protection certificate which might be granted to the defendant in respect of the patent based upon any marketing authorisation obtained by the claimant for the claimant's antibody would be invalid.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.