Intellectual Property Law: Hospira UK Ltd & Anr v Novartis AG, CH Div (Arnold J), 15/3/13

An application for revocation of N’s two European patents, concerning the intravenous administration of a biophosphonate for the treatment of osteoporosis, was granted. The patents were not entitled to priority from the document claimed, and an intervening publication rendered them invalid. Further, the open-ended claims were invalid for insufficiency because they were not enabled across their breadth: They required the skilled team to carry out a substantial programme of clinical trials to ascertain what doses and dosing intervals were efficacious.

Other posts by

May 24, 2013   Posted in: Case Reports  No Comments

Intellectual Property Law: Glaxosmithkline Biological SA v Comptroller-General of Patents, Ch Div (Arnold J), 21/3/13

In the context if G’s application for an SPC, the court referred questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, concerning whether a pharmaceutical product, which had no therapeutic effect by itself but which enhanced the therapeutic effect of an antigen when combined in a vaccine, was an ‘active ingredient’ within the meaning of Reg 469/2009 art 1(b), and if not whether the combination of the product and the antigen could nonetheless be regarded as a ‘combination of active ingredients’ for the purposes of the same provision. The referring court indicated that it would answer both questions in the negative, adopting a strict interpretation in the interests of providing a simple and predictable system.

Other posts by

May 23, 2013   Posted in: News  No Comments

Book Recommendation: Lawyers Uncovered: Everything You Always Wanted to Know, But Didn’t Want to Pay ÂŁ500 an Hour to Find Out

The funny and subversive ‘Queen’s Counsel’ cartoon strip has appeared on the law pages of “The Times” since 1993, delighting the legal profession and general readers alike with its accurate and biting send-up of the profession and its practices. Here – allegedly! – is the best of them. In these pages, readers will delight in Geoffrey Bentwood QC, who specialises in boring his clients to death, while not-so-secretly longing to be promoted to the bench; his sidekick, Edward Longwind, who takes lessons in pomposity from Sir Geoffrey; Richard Loophole of Loophole and Fillibuster who does his best to bankrupt his clients, while working his associates to death and pretending to remember some of the law he learned at school; and at the mercy of all of them is the luckless Mr Sprocket, the endlessly unsuccessful litigant whose lawyers will not rest until they have spent all of his money. This work features the best of the ‘Queen’s Counsel’ cartoon strip from “The Times”.

Available from Amazon 

Other posts by

May 22, 2013   Posted in: Books  No Comments

Monday morning with Alex Williams’ cartoons,20th May 2013

This cartoon is by Alex Williams who draws the Queen’s Counsel cartoons for The Times and in numerous books including Lawyers Uncovered. He also does the cartoons for BabyBarista and has had two more excellent books published recently: 101 Ways to Leave the Law and 101 Uses for a Useless Banker. He offers almost all of his cartoons for sale at £120 for originals and £40 for copies and they can be obtained from this email infoatqccartoondotcom.

Other posts by

May 20, 2013   Posted in: Cartoons  No Comments

Intellectual Property Law: Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK Ltd, SC (Lord Neuberger, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr), 13/3/13

The Supreme Court explored the interpretation of the word “makes” in s.60(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1977. It was inevitably a matter of fact and degree, depending on context, whether an activity involved “making” an article of fell short of that. It might sometimes be useful to consider whether the alleged infringer was repairing rather than making the article. The mere fact that a process involved replacing a constituent part of an article did not necessarily point to ‘making’ rather than repairing. In the instant case, the replacement of the ‘bottle’ component in reconditioned IBCs (consisting of a metal cage around a bottle) did not amount to ‘making’ the patented article.

Other posts by

May 17, 2013   Posted in: Case Reports  No Comments

Construction Law: Nelson’s Yard Management Co v Ezfiefula [2013] EWCA Civ 235

This Party Wall etc Act 1996 case concerned which party was responsible for costs of an action that the Claimant discontinued. The Defendant had commenced excavations near to the rear wall of the Claimant’s property without serving a Party Wall Act notice. The Claimant sent 4 letters setting out the failure to serve a notice and asking that its surveyor have access to inspect the foundations. The Defendant did not respond. The Claimant then issued proceedings seeking injunctive relief. The Defendant served a Defence arguing the Act did not apply. Arrangements were made for the Claimant’s surveyor to inspect, and the Defendant served a notice and paid an award under the Act. The Claimant discontinued the proceedings but applied for its costs on the basis of the Defendant’s obstructive behaviour. The Judge held that the normal CPR rule 38.6(1) applied and the Claimant was liable for the Defendant’s costs incurred before the date of the notice of discontinuance. The Court of Appeal allowed the Claimant’s appeal. It was held in this case the Defendant’s conduct prior to the commencement of the action was unreasonable, as he did not respond to conduct, set out his position or seek to narrow the issues or engage with the Claimant so as to resolve them.

Other posts by

May 16, 2013   Posted in: Case Reports  No Comments

Book Recommendation: How the Law Works

How the Law Works is a refreshingly clear and reliable guide to today’s legal system. Offering interesting and comprehensive coverage, it makes sense of all the curious features of the law in day to day life and in current affairs.

Explaining the law and legal jargon in plain English, it provides an accessible entry point to the different types of law and legal techniques, as well as today’s compensation culture and human rights law. In addition to explaining the role of judges, lawyers, juries and parliament, it clarifies the mechanisms behind criminal and civil law.

How the Law Works is essential reading for anyone approaching law for the first time, or for anyone who is interested in an engaging introduction to the subject’s bigger picture.

Available from Amazon

Other posts by

May 15, 2013   Posted in: Books  No Comments

Monday morning with Alex Williams’ cartoons,13th May 2013

This cartoon is by Alex Williams who draws the Queen’s Counsel cartoons for The Times and in numerous books including Lawyers Uncovered. He also does the cartoons for BabyBarista and has had two more excellent books published recently: 101 Ways to Leave the Law and 101 Uses for a Useless Banker. He offers almost all of his cartoons for sale at £120 for originals and £40 for copies and they can be obtained from this email infoatqccartoondotcom.

Other posts by

May 13, 2013   Posted in: Cartoons  No Comments

Construction Law: AJ Building and Plastering Ltd v Turner and others

The Claimant was appointed by the insurance company of the three Defendant homeowners to carry out repair works on each of their houses. The insurance company instructed Rok to carry out the works, and Rok had sub-contracted the Claimant. However, following payment by the insurance company to Rok for the works, Rok went into administration. The Claimant was therefore unpaid and unable to claim the money owed from Rok. The Claimant sought to claim against the Defendants directly, relying on a mandate signed between each Defendant and the Claimant. Then Court however held that that the mandates did not create a direct contractual obligation on the Defendants to pay the Claimant. The surrounding circumstances were, inter alia, that the parties were aware that the insurers would pay, and the Defendants had no say in the price of the works. Accordingly, the payment from the insurers to Rok discharged the Defendant’s liability.

Other posts by

May 10, 2013   Posted in: Case Reports  No Comments

Criminal Law: Regina (on the Application of Dragoman) -v- Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court [2013] EWHC 72

In this case the Appellant was sentenced to a community order for offences of theft and going equipped purportedly made pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.177. The Appellant was a Romanian national. The community order included a requirement that the Appellant did not enter the United Kingdom for a period of twelve months. The Appellant applied for judicial review of the decision of the Court to impose the aforementioned requirement.
In allowing the appeal and holding that the order made in this case was unlawful the Queen’s Bench Division reaffirmed the principle that the purpose of a community order was to rehabilitate someone within the United Kingdom. This order was tantamount to an order for deportation, for which a Statutory regime existed under the United Kingdom Borders Act 2007. Whilst orders could contain a requirement excluding an offender from parts of the United Kingdom, e.g. in order to stop offending, a requirement prohibiting an offender from the United Kingdom in its entirely was unlawful.

Other posts by

May 9, 2013   Posted in: Case Reports  No Comments