Search for: "Santens v. Santens"
Results 1 - 18
of 18
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jan 2020, 12:55 pm
The case concerns an SPC based on a second medical use/formulation patent and stems from a referral to the CJEU made by the Paris Court of Appeal with decision of 9 October 2018 in Santen v. [read post]
17 May 2021, 5:33 am
In Santen (C-673/18) the CJEU rejected its own previous reasoning on this question and appeared to rule out the possibility of SPCs based on 2nd marketing authorisations (The SPC Blog).The CJEU decision Santen (C-673/18) has now been applied by the Court of Appeal of Ireland (Merck v Clonmel [2021] IECA 54). [read post]
24 Jan 2024, 3:40 am
The third ground Merck relied on was that Santen was wrongly decided. [read post]
15 Jan 2018, 8:37 pm
Micro Labs Ltd. v. [read post]
13 Dec 2021, 12:49 am
The SPC in question was found invalid in view of Article 3(d) following Santen (C-673/18). [read post]
15 Jul 2020, 3:23 am
The Fashion Law reported on a recent US case - involving Tom Ford lipstick, a photo on Cardi B's Instagram, XXL magazine, and the photographer who originally took the photo - in which the matter was determined to be fair use.PatentsThe CJEU's judgment in Case C-673/18 Santen to abolish SPCs for new therapeutic applications, following the Advocate General's recommendation to reverse its prior finding in Case C-130/11 Neurim, has attracted significant commentary,… [read post]
23 Oct 2018, 1:22 am
This referral was made by the Court of Appeal of Paris with decision of 9 October 2018 in Santen v. [read post]
4 Sep 2023, 1:05 am
(Dec 2021)SPCs based on a second marketing authorisation - the fight continues (Novartis C-354/19) (Jun 2019)Article 3(a) just keeps on giving: AG Opinion in SPC referrals C-650/17 and C-114/18 (Sep 2019)Does the Irish Court of Appeal in Merck v Clonmel part ways from the CJEU's Santen Article 3(d) decision? [read post]
11 Jun 2021, 3:43 am
| Does the Irish Court of Appeal in Merck v Clonmel part ways from the CJEU's Santen Article 3(d) decision? [read post]
17 Jan 2023, 12:00 am
According to Sweet & Maxwell, in addition to the major changes prompted by Brexit, other new features include: • Reviews the Supreme Court decisions in Warner Lambert v Generics and Regeneron v Kymab on insufficiency and plausibility• Commentary on the CJEU decision in Santen SAS v DGINPI on SPCs• A new section concerning IPR disputes between employers and employees• Overhaul of the chapter on Article 102 as to when exercising IPRs may… [read post]
2 Jun 2021, 12:22 pm
Does the Irish Court of Appeal in Merck v Clonmel part ways from the CJEU's Santen Article 3(d) decision? [read post]
30 Apr 2020, 12:59 pm
While, unsurprisingly, the test endorsed by the CJEU in Teva v. [read post]
27 Dec 2023, 12:04 pm
Louis Sirkin (Santen & Hughes). [read post]
23 Aug 2021, 3:02 am
The case in Ono Pharmaceutical v Commissioner of Patents ([2021] FCA 643) related to the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) for the treatment of cancer, owned by Ono Pharmaceuticals (a subsidiary of BMS). [read post]
7 Mar 2022, 12:44 am
The machinations on the application of Article 3 to combination SPCs is just yet another example of the hazy ground that can open up between these two imperatives.Further reading28 June 2019: SPCs based on a second marketing authorisation - the fight continues (Novartis C-354/19)13 September 2019: Article 3(a) just keeps on giving: AG Opinion in SPC referrals C-650/17 and C-114/1817 May 2021: Does the Irish Court of Appeal in Merck v Clonmel part ways from the CJEU's… [read post]
12 Mar 2020, 1:48 am
He also considered that more permissive case law such as Neurim had been cut back by Abraxis and there are indications that Santen will do the same, if the Advocate General’s Opinion is followed. [read post]
23 Dec 2020, 10:07 pm
In tenth position is an blogpost discussing a case in India: Monsanto v. [read post]
30 Oct 2010, 9:56 pm
Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), often referred to as "staph," is a bacterium commonly carried on the skin or in the nose of healthy people. [read post]
