Search for: "Kirin v. Kirin" Results 41 - 60 of 83
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Oct 2011, 10:19 am by Jonathan Bailey
This one is by screenwriter Michael Alan Rubin, who claims the film copies elements from his script, “Mickey and Kirin”. [read post]
3 Mar 2017, 7:25 am
The High Court has granted declarations to FKB and SB to the effect that their products lacked novelty or an inventive step at a particular date - Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Company Limited and Samsung Bioepsis UK Limited v AbbVie Biotechnology Limited [2017] EWHC 395 (Pat). [read post]
24 Nov 2017, 7:07 am by Brian Cordery
Handed down by Henry Carr J on 21 November, Illumina v Premaitha considered aspects of Actavis and much more besides. [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 11:03 pm by Aparajita Lath
In true anecdotal style, the author explains the relevance of Section 115 of the Indian statute (appointment of scientific advisors) by pointing out the open expression of gratitude by Lord Hoffmann in Kirin-Amgen v. [read post]
28 Oct 2008, 5:52 am
On this basis there was no infringement.* The prior art cited by ACS did not emcompass the invention described in Ancon's patent, so the challenge to its validity failed.The IPKat notes the judge's reliance on, among other decisions, that of the House of Lords in Kirin-Amgen Inc. v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd, in which Lord Hoffmann rewrote, clarified or invented the British law on claim construction, depending on how you read the law that came before it. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 3:49 am by Miquel Montañá
As explained in paragraph 42 of this judgment, in paragraph 37 of Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2005] RPC 9, Lord Hoffmann explained that the doctrine of equivalents had been developed in the United States. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 3:49 am by Miquel Montañá
As explained in paragraph 42 of this judgment, in paragraph 37 of Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2005] RPC 9, Lord Hoffmann explained that the doctrine of equivalents had been developed in the United States. [read post]
25 Jun 2019, 9:28 am
Little did the PatKat know, but she wasabout to get a message from the Dutchcourt saying that all may not be well in theland of equivalenceThe pemetrexed saga has, by now, obtained a hit-series-like status, with new decisions coming regularly and even more decisions yet to come. [read post]
30 Apr 2017, 4:30 am
 Fujifilm v AbbVie: practice, procedure and policy analysisGuest Kat Eibhlin Vardy summarizes the Rapid Response event organized by AIPPI on the case Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Company Limited v AbbVie Biotechnology Limited, [2017] EWHC 395 (Pat), from the perspective of patent and competition law.Overturning a trade mark opposition decision - Part 2 - SOULUXE - likelihood of confusionGuest Kat Rosie Burbidge recaps the case SoulCycle Inc v Matalan Ltd,… [read post]
29 Jan 2018, 2:57 am
Are the famous words of Lord Hoffman in Kirin-Amgen that "life is too short" to consider the file, soon to ring hollow? [read post]
28 Jul 2011, 3:00 am
Distinct issues of construction arose in respect of claims 1 and 3 of the patent:Claim 1:A wound dressing comprising a blend of discrete modified cellulose gel forming fibres with at least one other type of discrete gel forming fibres.Claim 3:A wound dressing as claimed in any preceding claim wherein the dressing comprises a wound contacting surface consisting of a blend of discrete modified cellulose fibres with at least one other type of discrete gel forming fibres.Setting out the law, the Judge… [read post]
11 May 2011, 4:54 am by Marie Louise
General UNCTAD: Bundle of opportunities to improve medicines access in LDCs (IP Watch) Australia: Why IP professionals must take ‘gene patent’ opponents seriously (Patentology) Australia: FCA finds fatal flaw in Plant Breeders Rights Act: Elders Rural Services Australia Limited v Registrar of Plant Breeder’s Rights (Patentology) (ipwars) Finland: Decision on parallel import of pharmaceuticals (Class 46) Italy: Again on MA filing as a preparatory act of marketing –… [read post]
24 Oct 2018, 3:49 am
In Actavis Lord Neuberger ruled that, contrary to Kirin-Amgen v Hoescht ([2004] UKHL 46) a court may rely on the prosecution history to determine the scope of a patent, if this would unambiguously resolve a point or if it would be contrary to the public interest for the contents of the file to be ignored (paragraph 88). [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 10:01 pm by Kelly
– state of research and development of new drugs in Indian pharma industry (Spicy IP) US: The Financial Times’ take on gene patenting (Patent Docs) US: Seattle Biotech companies fight over allegedly similar names: Mirina Corp. v. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 1:44 pm
Sighted this morning, breaking the surface just off the Strand, the judgment of Mr Justice Arnold in MedImmune v Novartis [2011] EWHC 1669 (Pat) certainly fits the legend.In characteristic style, the judgment is as comprehensive as one would wish. [read post]
5 Dec 2010, 3:02 pm
These included (i) adopting a method of claim construction that takes explicit account of public policy and/or that which merits the invention its patent protection (see eg American Cyanamid Co (Dann’s) Patent (HL 1971), Biogen v Medeva (1995 HL) and Kirin-Amgen (2004 HL); (ii) creating more defences to infringement/compulsory licensing provisions; (iii) relying more on remedies; and/or (iv) reintroducing a law of fair basis. [read post]
22 Oct 2009, 3:29 am
This judgment is a lot shorter than that of the first instance decision, weighing in at a mere 133 paragraphs.The IPKat hasn't yet had time to digest for the benefit of legal beagles, but here are a couple of snippets for legal whippets:* After summarising Kirin-Amgen v Hoechst Marion Roussel [see earlier IPKat post here] and saying that one might suppose there was no more to say on the subject of claim construction after that ruling, the Court said: "13. ... the skilled… [read post]
2 Mar 2017, 1:02 pm
 Readers are in for a treat as tomorrow Mr Justice Carr's decision in the first trial between Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Co., Ltd and Others v AbbVie Biotechnology Limited ("FKB 1") is being handed down at 10:30AM London time.As soon as we digest the decision, GuestKat Eihblin Vardy, will be back to let readers know whether, despite having survived various interim attempts by AbbVie to kill it, the Arrow declaration has finally hit the target for… [read post]
6 Jan 2010, 10:44 am
Since, as Neuberger (judge, as he was) said (I believe in the erythropoietin case, Kirin Amgen) that "life is too short to consider the file history", his argument may fly. [read post]
6 Apr 2018, 3:42 am by Brian Cordery
The principles to be applied to such inventions have been summarised by the House of Lords in Kirin-Amgen and Lundbeck. [read post]