Employment analysis: Employers are facing an increasing number of requests from employees looking to bring their pets (normally dogs) into the office. This latest trend stems from the transition from home to office working, with many pet-owning employees not willing or able to spend a full day away from their pet. Keely Rushmore, an employment law specialist at Keystone Law, explains why any employer considering letting dogs into the workplace needs to consider their position carefully, not least from a disability discrimination and health and safety perspective.

Law360, London: Pfizer asked an appeals court on 10 July 2025 to revoke surplus patent protections underpinning rival Moderna's mRNA vaccine after getting a key patent tossed.

ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 21 July 2022; it is no longer maintained. NOTE—appeals lodged before the CAT by Pfizer and Flynn Pharma following the CMA’s 2016 decision (1525/1/12/22 and 1524/1/12/22). Subsequent appeals also lodged by Pfizer and Flynn Pharma following the CMA’s 2022 decision (1525/1/12/22 and 1524/1/12/22) See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline CMA Article 102 TFEU/Chapter II investigation into Pfizer and Flynn Pharma in relation to an alleged abuse of dominance through charging excessive and unfair prices for an anti-epilepsy drug (phenytoin sodium capsules) (Case CE/9742-13) Latest developments On 21 July 2022, the CMA issued its infringement decision and issued the following fines: • Pfizer—£63.3m • Flynn—£6.7m (representing 10% of Flynn's global turnover). Parties Pfizer Inc (Pfizer) is a global pharmaceutical company which is headquartered in New York. It produces medicines and vaccines for a wide range of medical conditions. Its subsidiary in the UK directly involved with the sale of phenytoin sodium capsules

Law 360: The Second Circuit said on 11 March 2024 that Pfizer does not need to give a French nonprofit the communications between its CEO and the European Commission’s president related to a coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine development agreement, ruling the materials are irrelevant to a jurisdictional issue in the group’s legal challenge to the pact in France.

IP analysis: Warner-Lambert (a Pfizer subsidiary) has failed in its attempt to overturn the High Court’s refusal to allow it to amend its defence in an inquiry as to damages pursuant to cross-undertakings given by Warner-Lambert to argue for a limitation on the scope of damages. The effect of Warner-Lambert’s proposed amendments was to contend for the exclusion of damages attributable to the sale of pregabalin products which would have been used to treat inflammatory pain as against National Health Service (NHS) Scotland and Dr Reddy’s. The Court of Appeal held that one of the contentions was wrong in law and the other had no reasonable prospect of success and, in any event, it was an abuse of process for it to be advanced now. The decision provides useful guidance on matters that may, or may not be, relevant when assessing damages under cross-undertakings given to secure the grant of interim relief. Written by Paul Abbott, senior associate at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 7 June 2018; it is no longer maintained. NOTE—on 20 December 2018, the Court of Appeal granted the CMA permission to appeal the CAT’s judgment of 7 June 2018 See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Flynn Pharma Limited and Flynn Pharma (Holdings) Limited v CMA (1275/1/12/17), Pfizer Inc. and Pfizer Limited (1276/1/12/17)–appeals to the CAT in relation to the CMA’s decision of 12 February 2016 in Case CE-9742–13 phenytoin sodium capsules. Latest development On 25 July 2018, the CAT issued a ruling in which it (i) refused both Flynn and Pfizer permission to appeal the CAT’s judgment of 7 June 2018 (ii) remitted the issue of abuse to the CMA for reconsideration in accordance with that judgment and (iii) confirmed that the timing of the remittal should be immediate (instead of staying the remittal until the final determination of any appeal). Parties Appellants: • Pfizer Inc. and Pfizer Limited (together

Law360: Pfizer and BioNTech are on the hook for infringing Moderna's protections over its mRNA vaccines after a London court upheld on 2 July 2024 the validity of one of two key UK patents over the technology.

MLex: Pfizer, Flynn Pharma and the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) have won appeals against a court ruling in the latest chapter in their long-running epilepsy drug pricing case. The companies were originally sanctioned by the competition watchdog in 2016 over the price of phenytoin sodium capsules, triggering a legal battle which has led to revised penalties and raised questions about the CMA's handling of the case.

Life Sciences analysis: Ian Turner, senior associate, and Sarah Taylor, senior practice Development Lawyer at Pinsent Masons LLP offer insights into the mRNA coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine patent dispute initially brought by Moderna against Pfizer and BionTech. The Patents Court held one of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine patents (EP (UK) 3 718 565 (‘EP565’)) to be invalid on the grounds of obviousness and added matter, but held a second patent (EP (UK) 3 590 949 (‘EP949’)) to be valid and, by admission, Pfizer/BioNTech’s coronavirus vaccine Comirnaty was held to be within the scope of the claims. The judge, Mr Justice Meade, also made some pertinent comments about case management where trials involve multiple patents and legal teams, and the instruction of experts. In a separate decision, the Patents Court held that Moderna’s pledge that it would not enforce its patents against those making coronavirus vaccines (the ‘Pledge’) amounted to an unusual partial defence to the infringement claim. The Pledge decision is not covered in this note.

RULES OF THE [insert name of company] PHANTOM SHARE AWARD PLAN Adopted by the Board on [insert date] 1 Definitions In these Rules (unless the context otherwise requires) the following words and phrases have the following meanings: Award • means an award of Units granted to a Participant, subject to the terms of the Plan and the Award Agreement; Award Agreement • means the agreement referred to in Rule 3.5 entered into between the Company and an Eligible Employee; Award Date • means the date on which the Board grants an Award in accordance with the rules of the Plan; Award Payment • means in respect of each Unit subject to an Award, a cash payment equal to the difference between the Base Value and the Exit Value; Base Value • is the Market Value of a Share as at the Award Date or such other value as determined by the Board on the Award Date; Board • means the board of directors from time to time of the Company or a duly authorised committee of such directors; Company • means [insert name of company], a company incorporated in [insert

What is a phantom award? Phantom awards, broadly speaking, can be split into two categories, namely phantom share awards and phantom options. Phantom share awards A phantom share award is best described as a right to receive a cash payment equal to the value of a real share. Phantom share awards may also be referred to as ‘shadow shares’, ‘synthetic shares’, and ‘equity appreciation units’, however, this note refers to them as 'phantoms' and 'phantom share awards'. Phantom options A phantom option is the term commonly used to describe a right to receive the growth in value of a real share above a notional exercise price or base price. Practical example BigCo Limited is a fast-growing private UK company and wants to implement an incentive plan under which all employees will participate and benefit in any future growth of the company. However, BigCo Limited has a number of investors who do not want BigCo Limited to award real shares to employees as this would dilute the existing investor shareholders. If

This AGREEMENT is made on [insert date of execution of the phantom share option agreement] Parties 1 [insert name of company whose shares are relevant to the phantom option] (registered number [insert registered number of company]) whose registered office is at [insert registered address of company] (the Company); and 2 [insert name of option holder] of [insert address of option holder] (the Option Holder) Background (A) The Company has agreed to grant to the Option Holder as at the date of this Agreement a Phantom Option on the terms set out in this Agreement. (B) The Phantom Option provides an entitlement to cash and not shares. 1 Definitions In this Agreement, except where the context otherwise requires, the words and expressions set out below will bear the following meanings, namely: Cash Payment • means the cash sum payable on the exercise of the Phantom Option, which shall be calculated in accordance with clause 6.2; Control • has the meaning given in section 995 of the Income Taxes Act 2007; Date of Grant • means the date on which this Agreement is entered into; Directors • means the board of directors of the Company from time to time or a duly authorised