sutton044

In his pre-dinner speech at the CIPA life Sciences conference last week, Lord Neuberger wistfully commented that, if there was one case that he would like to have come back to the Supreme Court bench for, it was Warner-Lambert vs Actavis. Following the Supreme Court hearing of this case in February, IPKat has spent the summer on tenterhooks waiting for the decision to be handed down. The decision was handed down this morning, and can be read here . In summary, the Supreme Court dismissed Warner-Lambert's appeal that the patent was sufficiently disclosed, and upheld Actavis and Mylan's appeal that the disputed claims were not even partially sufficient. The Supreme Court also unanimously held that, if the claims had been found valid, they would not have infringed.  The Supreme Court was also unanimous on construction and found that the post-trial amendment sought by Warner-Lambert was an abuse of process. IPKat's full analysis of the decision will follow shortly. Whilst we di...

The US and UK patent offices have granted a number of patents relating to the therapeutic use of cannabis derived products. Paradoxically, both the US and UK governments currently define cannabis and cannabis-derived products as having no medicinal benefit. Recent developments suggest that both governments may soon soften the legal definition of cannabis. This Kat takes the opportunity to ask, in view of the US and UK governments current position that cannabis has no medicinal use, how strong are the patents claiming the very same? The legality of cannabis derived products is complicated by the broad spectrum of potential substances to which this term may refer. The cannabis plant contains at least 85 cannabinoids. The most prominent of these, cannabidiol (CBD), is non-psychoactive and has been associated with a number therapeutic effects. THC is the second most prevalent cannabidiol in cannabis, and is the primary psychoactive substance. Cannabis derived products contain varying amoun...