The newly-minted issue 2 of volume 10 of the excellent Bio-Science Law Review (published six times a year by Lawtext) carries a note by Jonathan Ball and Elizabeth Barnett, both of London law firm Norton Rose, on paediatric extensions. Entitled "High Court Upholds UK's Strict Approach on Paediatric Extension to SPCs", this is an analysis of the Patents Court for England and Wales in E I Du Pont Nemours & Co [2009] EWHC 1112 (Ch), the Losartan application (noted here on The SPC Blog).Since the publisher of the Bio-SLR is an old friend, I'll see if I can persuade him to let blog readers have sight of this four-page note in pdf format.
4 comments:
A little out of date perhaps, considering the Court of Appeal decision on 19 August 2009 granting the extension - see the UKIPO Patent Register for details.
On 19 August 2009 the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court's decision.
Journals that are published six times a year and which have a lead-in time of several months between receipt of a case note and the date of publication are always going to hit the problem of obsolescence of subject matter. But that does not deprive a case note of its value. Apart from the fact that case notes (other than the purely descriptive variety) often provide insights that are not mentioned in the decision they discuss, they also reflect the style, philosophy and other characteristics of their authors -- matters which a client company may wish to know about before deciding, for example, which of a number of law firms to instruct.
I think the SPC for Losartan was granted end of August. I don't know if the decision/reasons are published anywhere?
The UK patent office shows it granted on 24th August: see http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-os/p-find/p-find-spc/p-find-spc-byspc-results.htm?number=SPC%2FGB95%2F010&submit=Go+%BB
Post a Comment