Search for: "Brian Cordery" Results 1 - 20 of 28
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Mar 2018, 4:52 am by Brian Cordery
Brian Corderyby Claire Wilson & Brian Cordery Around this time last year, in Edwards Lifesciences v Boston Scientific [2017], His Honour Judge Hacon (sitting as a High Court Judge) had the opportunity to analyse two interesting aspects of UK patent law: (i) the law of implied disclosures and anticipation; and (ii) the importance of so-called secondary evidence in the evaluation of inventive step. [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 6:50 am by Brian Cordery
Brian CorderyBristowsby Brian Cordery, Rachel Mumby and Steven Willis Media attention at the English High Court today may have been focussed on the Article 50 challenge but for many patent lawyers operating in the life sciences sector, of equal or greater importance was the handing down of the long-awaited judgment in the Lyrica appeal. [read post]
1 Oct 2013, 1:19 pm by Tom Kosakowski
  April 2013Guest speaker: Steve Cordery, Corporate Ombudsman, United Technologies Corp., UK What does the Ombuds do at the Federal Reserve (Michele Fennell)? [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 7:04 am by Maria Kendrick
Maria KendrickKing's College LondonIntroduction by Brian Cordery and Rik Lambers “As many readers will know, the English High Court ruled on a legal challenge as to whether the government could trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty without parliamentary approval. [read post]
25 Apr 2017, 6:00 am
As it turned out, it was 99% about plausibility and only 1% about Second Medical Use.After an introduction by Brian Cordery (Bristows), who highlighted the importance that the plausibility check has gained in patent validity matters in the UK, Floyd LJ explained the complete history of plausibility in less than 5 minutes and with 5 decision. [read post]
18 Aug 2015, 3:40 am
  It seemed clear that, from Dr Bacon’s perspective, the person who set the rules on how salesmen went about their tasks was his immediate boss, one Mr Brian Cordery, but who had not been called to give evidence. [read post]
15 Nov 2016, 6:06 am
 No, its not the start of a joke, but the identities of the three speakers who take the form of Claire Baldock (Boult Wade Tennant), Stuart Baran (Three New Square) and Brian Cordery (Bristows) What:  Bringing their unique perspectives, the speakers will be analyzing the Court of Appeal's decision, dealing with the three main aspects of validity, abuse of process and infringement. [read post]
30 Dec 2017, 2:13 pm
  Andrew’s note, and Bristows “Review of the Year” when Brian [Cordery] finishes it, are the two must-haves short guides to patents for anyone with an exam coming up. [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 11:58 pm
 The same panel of experts  - Claire Baldock (Boult Wade Tenant), Brian Cordery (Bristows) and Stuart Baran (3 New Square) - that presented at the first seminar reconvened last week to revisit the issues and grapple with new ones raised by the two most recent judgments. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 3:49 am by Miquel Montañá
” This focus on “immateriality” has begged the question in other posts published on this blog as to whether this judgment marks the return of the “pith and marrow doctrine” (please see the post published by Brian Cordery on 13 July 2017). [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 3:49 am by Miquel Montañá
” This focus on “immateriality” has begged the question in other posts published on this blog as to whether this judgment marks the return of the “pith and marrow doctrine” (please see the post published by Brian Cordery on 13 July 2017). [read post]
22 Mar 2019, 4:48 am by Brian Cordery
Brian Cordery and Laura ReynoldsIn a post yesterday our colleagues at Vossius commented on the CJEU’s decision, which had just been handed down in Abraxis*. [read post]
3 Dec 2019, 6:59 am by Brian Cordery
Brian Cordery and Matthew RaynorOn 29 November 2019, the Patents Court of England and Wales handed down it decision revoking Conversant’s UK patent relating to an improved user interface on smartphone devices. [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 2:10 am by Oswin Ridderbusch
In the referring decision [2019] EWHC 388 (Pat), which was previously discussed on this blog by Brian Cordery and Laura Reynolds, Arnold J held that an SPC could not validly issue in the case at hand because the basic patent was found to be invalid in a parallel first-instance decision. [read post]
5 Apr 2016, 6:32 am
Brian Cordery sets the stagefor second medical useAfter hearing the views of the IP judiciary, the Fordham audience was treated to a session devoted to second medical use claims, with Brian Cordery (Bristows LLP) moderating the panel. [read post]
7 Nov 2017, 3:26 am by Brian Cordery
Brian Cordery and Emma MunceyLast year, Actavis, Teva and Mylan (“Actavis”) sought revocation in the English Patents Court of two patents relating to tadalafil, which is sold by Eli Lilly (“Lilly”) as the active ingredient in CIALIS® to treat erectile dysfunction and pulmonary arterial hypertension. [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 3:50 am
 The IPKat learns from his friend Brian Cordery (Bristows) that the Supreme Court has granted permission to appeal in Schlumberger v Electromagnetic Services (noted by the IPKat here). [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 8:23 am
  "Henry's clarity of thought and exceptional communication skills served him well as a Judge," Brian Cordery recalls. [read post]
27 Mar 2019, 5:28 am by Brian Cordery
Brian Cordery and Claire Phipps-JonesThe UK Supreme Court today handed down its decision in Actavis v ICOS. [read post]