Background For more information on Arrow Declarations, please read Part I and Part II of this series of articles. In September 2016, Mr Justice Arnold refused to strike out Fujifilm’s request for an Arrow Declaration, at the request of AbbVie, based on bad faith...
Background Arrow Declarations are declarations regarding the validity of subject-matter (rather than specific patents) and provide accused infringers of legal certainty that their proposed activities will not fall within the scope of any valid patent that may be...
Arrow Declarations The term “Arrow Declaration” refers to a declaration that the subject-matter of an invention is not patentable. The term stems from the case Arrow v Merck [2007] EWHC 1900 (Pat) where such a declaration was first issued. Unlike...
In a recent article on this website we examined the case of Actavis vs Lilly and the “plausibility” test for sufficiency of disclosure used in that case. We noted that that this was a departure from the test for sufficiency that has been used previously and that this...
In a second medical use patent to the “Use of tomoxetine for the manufacture of a medicament for treating attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder”, EP(UK) 0721777, no data was provided to support the claimed invention. Actavis sought to revoke the patent on the...
Recent Comments