Chemical & Pharmaceutical
We draft and file patent applications for new chemical inventions, ranging from pharmaceuticals to cosmetics to food products. Our clients range from small to medium sized enterprises to large multinational corporations. As a result of our wide variety of work, we are able to tailor our services to an individual client’s needs – no matter how big or small.
We have a vast amount of experience in obtaining patents not only in the UK and Europe but in countries across the globe from the Americas to Asia and everywhere in between, with the assistance of trusted patent attorneys in other jurisdictions. A detailed understanding of patent law across multiple jurisdictions helps us to assist our clients with preparing and executing global patent prosecution strategies in an effective manner.
Chemical & Pharmaceutical
Oppositions & appeals
Our Oppositions and Appeals teams are also active in contentious matters, be that attacking or defending patents. The team has decades worth of experience in handling multi-party EPO oppositions and appeals, including collaborating with other opponents where advantageous, and effectively presenting arguments in the written and oral parts of the proceedings.
In addition to securing patents for our clients, we also regularly advise on infringement risks arising from third party patent rights. We are able to conduct searches for relevant third-party patent rights that may be of relevance to our client’s commercial activities and advise accordingly on any infringement risks that we identify along with steps that can be taken to mitigate these risks.
Read the latest insights from the Schlich team reporting recent cases relevant to the chemical & pharmaceutical sector.
EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal set to consider in G 1/23 the degree to which enablement impacts the status of a commercially available product as state of the art
Central to the assessment of patentability at the EPO is the definition of ‘state of the art’. Article 54(2) EPC defines the state of the art as ‘everything made available to the public’ before the effective filing date of a patent application. But when the thing made available to the public is a product with a defined chemical composition, how much of that composition is made available to the public by the simple disclosure of the product? G 1/92 provided an answer but as the current referral to the EPO’s EBA shows, there are gaps that need filing.
T0435/20 demonstrates the limit of obviousness of the “standard” procedure of generating antibodies for peptide epitopes. T0435/20 also serves to teach us that non-routine methods for generating antibodies for rare or “challenging” epitopes must be fully disclosed and apply to all of the antibodies that are claimed.
The UKIPO confirms that an SPC is for the product in the marketing authorisation on which it is based and not further uses for the product
It is well known that a pharmaceutical product can find alternative uses than the application for which it was originally developed. Furthermore, further patents can be granted to additional usage and dosage regimes for such pharmaceutical products. The question considered by the Hearing Officer in this case was whether a marketing authorisation for a single active compound (safinamide) was also sufficient to support a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) application for the use of safinamide in combination with levodopa/PDI for the treatment for Parkinson’s disease.
The Court of Appeal has issued a decision in the case of Neurim and Flynn v Mylan  EWCA Civ 699 finding that the plausibility of a therapeutic effect for treating a particular form of insomnia has been demonstrated using subjective data obtained by questioning the users of the pharmaceutical product.
There has been a new referral to the CJEU from the Supreme Court of Ireland on the interpretation of Articles 3(a) and 3(c) of the European SPC Regulation in relation to combination products.
New Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal on the Use of Post-Published Data to Support Inventive Step Confirmed
Further to our article of September 2021, the Board of Appeal has now confirmed its referral of three questions to the Enlarged Board regarding the use of post-published data in establishing an inventive step.
Belcher’s patent related to a high-pH formulation of L-epinephrine (L-adrenaline) and was granted with a claim to a formulation of pH 2.8-3.3. The formulation of L-epinephrine was also the subject of a new drug application before the FDA. Hospira, who were separately seeking FDA approval for their own L-adrenaline formulation, submitted that Belcher’s patent was […]
In the present case the patentee wished to rely on documents dated after the filing date for their inventive step argument, stating that these documents in combination with data in the application as filed provided evidence of a synergistic effect between two compounds in the insecticide. The Board of Appeal determined that the post-published data […]
Get in touch
Our team of UK and European Patent Attorneys and Chartered Trade Mark Attorneys are highly knowledgeable and experienced in assisting clients with all aspects of their IP needs.
Contact us now to find out more about how we could help you and your business.