header-logo header-logo

Patent

30 October 2014
Issue: 7628 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Teva UK Ltd and another company v Leo Pharma A/S [2014] EWHC 3096 (Pat), [2014] All ER (D) 54 (Oct)

The defendant company, LEO, owned two pharmaceutical patents. The claimant company, TEVA, sought revocation of both of the patents on the grounds that they were, among other things, obvious. The Chancery Division, Patents Court, held that, given a prior US patent, the two patents were obvious.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

A good book, a glass of chilled Albarino, and being creative for pleasure help Liz McGrath balance the rigours of complex bundles and being Head of Chambers

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Firm welcomes director in its financial services financial regulatory team

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn Premium Content

Partner appointment in firm’s equity capital markets team

NEWS

Law school partners with charity to give free assistance to litigants in need

Magic circle firms, in-house legal departments and litigation firms alike are embracing more flexible ways to manage surges of workloads, the success of Flex Legal has shown

Magic circle firms, in-house legal departments and litigation firms alike are embracing more flexible ways to manage surges of workloads, the success of Flex Legal has shown

Magic circle firms, in-house legal departments and litigation firms alike are embracing more flexible ways to manage surges of workloads, the success of Flex Legal has shown

Walkers and runners will take in some of London’s finest views at the 16th annual charity event

back-to-top-scroll