sutton044

The dust has started to settle following the Supreme Court decision in Warner-Lambert v Actavis   [2018] UKSC 56  handed down recently (IPKat post   here ). Much of the commentary has focused on the infringement aspect of the decision. In this first of IPKat's follow-up posts, this Kat delves deeper into the court's take on the issue of plausibility. The plausibility of second medical use inventions - why is it necessary? In the Supreme Court decision, Lord Sumption began his discussion of plausibility by considering the problem raised by determining the sufficiency of Swiss-style second medical use claims. " Section 14 of the Patents Act and the corresponding provisions of the EPC assume that an invention will be sufficiently disclosed if the specification enables it to be “performed”. In the case of a patent for a new product or process, that assumption is almost always correct. But the assumption is not correct in the case of a second use patent. The invention is not t...

IPKat is here with your update on the news and events in the world of IP!  First, a question to readers...In connection with comparative research for an upcoming publication, an IPKat reader is keen to hear from members of the IPKat community on how Article 131(1) EUTM,  regarding the seeking of provisional measures in relation to the enforcement of European Union trademarks (and corresponding art. 90(1) CDR) have been applied in various local jurisdictions. In particular, he is interested in decisions or literature holding that “non-EU trade mark courts” or “non-Community Design courts” have jurisdiction to grant such provisional measures.  Please  reply here . Events and Conferences First, a date change for the highly anticipated event hosted by the Institute of Brand and Innovation Law (IBIL) at UCL this autumn:  Pregabalin: Where stand plausibility, Swiss-form claims, late amendment and more?  In view of the expected publication date of the Supreme Cour...