Patents tracker This Practice Note is intended to be used to track the progress of judgments, legislative proposals and consultations related to patents. For archived items on patents, see Practice Note: Patents tracker [Archived]. Judgments—Supreme Court What's happening? When? Find out more Secretary of State for Health and another (Appellants) v Servier Laboratories Ltd and others (Respondents)  UKSC 24UKSC 2019/0172 2 July 2021: Supreme Court judgment delivered.14 April 2021: Supreme Court hearing.11 March 2020: permission to appeal to the Supreme Court granted.12 July 2019: Court of Appeal judgment delivered. Damages claim following injunction in patent proceedings This case concerns Servier’s enforcement of the UK designation of its patent for the alpha crystalline form of the tert-butylamine salt of perindopril (in particular by obtaining injunctions against other pharmaceutical companies) and the later finding that the patent was invalid.The Secretary of State for Health (SoS) buys drugs on behalf of the NHS. SoS argued that such conduct by Servier amounted to a making an unlawful profit by enforcement of the rights of a patented product in order to charge higher prices to the NHS. SoS failed at the High Court, the Court of Appeal and now at the Supreme Court in the UK to argue that Servier’s conduct was intentional, deceitful and caused economic damage to SoS and thus, the tax payer.Further information:—LNB News 02/07/2021 82—News Analysis: Triumph
Singapore—revocation of a patent This Practice Note was originally written for LexisAdvance® Practical Guidance Singapore. Grounds for revocation of a patent Pursuant to section 80(1) of the Patents Act (Cap 221), a patent may be revoked on the grounds that: • the invention is not a patentable invention (in other words, it is not novel, does not involve an inventive step and/or is not capable of industrial application) • the patent was granted to a person who is not entitled to be granted that patent • the patent specification does not disclose the invention clearly and completely for it to be performed by a person skilled in the art • the patent specification discloses an additional matter in the application beyond that is disclosed in the application • an amendment or correction was made to the patent specification which should not have been allowed • the patent was obtained fraudulently, on any misrepresentation and on any non-disclosure or inaccurate disclosure of any prescribed material information, and • there is double patenting in respect of the same invention An order of revocation shall have effect from the date the patent was granted as provided under the Patents Act, s 80(7). The grounds set out in the Patents Act, s 80(1) are exhaustive, and a patent may not be revoked on non-statutory grounds as stated in the case of Ng Kok Cheng v Chua Say Tiong  2
Discover our 50 Practice Notes on Person skilled in the art
Grounds of invalidity—patent infringement claim Claim No: [insert claim number] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND & WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD) [ Patents Court OR Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ] Between: [insert name] Claimant/Part 20 Defendant and [insert name] First Defendant/Part 20 Claimant [insert name] Second Defendant/Part 20 Claimant _______________________________________ Grounds of invalidity _______________________________________ The following are the Grounds of Invalidity of [GB Patent OR European Patent (UK)][number] (the Patent) referred to in the Defence and Counterclaim served with these Grounds of Invalidity and upon which the Defendants/Part 20 Claimants will rely. 1 The alleged invention as claimed in each and every claim of the Patent is not a patentable invention in that the subject matter was not new having regard to the matter which formed part of the state of the art at the priority date of the Patent [and common general knowledge]. Particulars The Defendants rely on the following as forming part of the state of the art at the relevant date: 1.1 the written disclosure in [give title and details of document] published in [give details of publication eg a journal] on [date] regarding the use of [name or describe the aspects of the invention that is alleged to have been disclosed to the public]; 1.2 the manufacture by [details of company] in or around [date] of the [name or describe the product containing the invention described in sub-paragraph 1.1 above] and subsequent availability of
Dive into our 1 Precedents related to Person skilled in the art
Life Sciences analysis: Oliver Parish, Associate at Mathys & Squire, an intellectual property law firm, discusses the differing approaches taken by the European Patents Office and the UK courts when using the content of the description of a patent to interpret the claims.
IP analysis: How does the UK’s IP regime stand up in the face of emerging artificial intelligence (AI) technology? Running from 7 September to 30 November 2020, the UK Intellectual Property Office’s (UKIPO) call for views on AI and Intellectual Property (IP) sought to find answers to a wide range of questions covering patents, copyright, trade marks, designs and trade secrets. With 92 responses from individual IP attorneys, trade bodies, industry associations, tech sectors, creative industries and other sectors the government had a lot to consider. Toby Bond, senior associate, and Chris de Mauny, senior associate, at Bird & Bird discuss the government response.
Read the latest 30 News articles on Person skilled in the art
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.
**Trials are provided to all LexisNexis content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisNexis services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
"LexisPSL and the other Lexis solutions support our business in exactly the way we want. They enable us to quickly turn around work and deliver the best possible service to our clients."
Access all documents on Person skilled in the art
0330 161 1234