Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
- Intellectual Property (17)
- Litigation / Dispute Resolution (16)
- Company/Commercial (11)
- Corporate (7)
- Healthcare (7)
- Competition/EU (3)
- Banking / Finance (2)
- Construction (2)
- Employment (2)
- Energy (2)
- Environment (2)
- Information Technology (2)
- Pensions (2)
- Personal tax / Trusts (2)
- Planning (2)
- Real Estate (2)
- Tax (2)
- Business Tax (1)
- Funds (1)
- Insolvency & restructuring (1)
- Licensing/Gaming/Betting (1)
- Media/Entertainment/Sport (1)
- PPP/PFI/Commercial projects (1)
- Private Client (1)
- Public Sector/Local Authority (1)
- Regulatory and compliance (1)
- Telecoms (1)
Sort By: Newest first | Oldest first
Hospira v Genentech III: Swiss form claim obvious in view of paper reporting the existence of Phase III trial
Arnold J has delivered the latest blow in the ongoing saga surrounding trastuzumab (the monoclonal antibody in Herceptin) and Hospira’s continued efforts to knock out Genentech’s patents.
In a dispute between Smith & Nephew and ConvaTech, the CoA has ruled that “between 1 per cent and 25 per cent” extends to all values = 0.5 per cent and <25.5 per cent.
‘Swiss’ form patent claims do not need subjective intent for infringement: Court of Appeal rules in Warner-Lambert v Actavis
The English Court of Appeal has issued considered, well-reasoned guidance on the construction of patent claims in ‘Swiss’ form. The decision is likely to have impact well beyond British shores.
Decision clears the way for the launch of ‘generic’ patches...
Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co has advised AstraZeneca on a co-development and commercialisation agreement with Innate Pharma SA, a biopharmaceutical company developing therapeutic antibodies for the treatment of cancer.
Wragges outlines the ambit of the inquiry, its background, the role and function of this type of investigation, and outline the extensive nature of the Commission’s powers in this regard.
Wragges has advised long-standing client on a three-year drug discovery collaboration agreement with Orca.
Parallel imports: when it is permissible to rebrand goods to the trademark used in the importing EU member state?
The Court of Appeal has returned its judgment in parallel imports case Speciality European Pharma v Doncaster Pharmaceuticals.
The Court of Appeal has confirmed Birss J’s finding that Genentech’s dosage regimen patent, concerning the monoclonal antibody which is the active ingredient in Herceptin, was obvious.
Arnold J refuses to strike out Warner-Lambert's claim: construction of Swiss form claims is an issue suitable for the Supreme Court
Arnold J has handed down a second decision in the dispute between Warner-Lambert and Actavis.
In his annual review of the year’s patent cases Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co’s Head of IP, Gordon Harris, delivers his verdict on the work of the IP courts in 2014.
Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co has advised GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on the sale of its shareholding interests in biopharmaceutical company Convergence Pharmaceuticals to Biogen Idec.
Warner-Lambert refused interim relief based on Swiss form claim: no serious issue to be tried regarding carved-out indication
The English Patents Court has refused an application by Warner-Lambert Company (WL) for interim relief, mandatory in nature, regarding conditions to be attached to the launch of generic pregabalin by Actavis.
Paying for delay and patent settlement arrangements — the European Commission (at last) publishes the Lundbeck decision
In 2013 the European Commission announced that it had fined H Lundbeck A/S in respect of infringements of Art 101 of the TFEU and the EEA Agreement. It has finally set out the basis for the infringements.
Birss J rules on product by process claim construction, extension of scope, added matter and obviousness in Hospira v Genentech.
In Teva v Leo, Mr Justice Birss was asked to decide whether two patents relating to a combined formulation for treatment of psoriasis were valid and infringed.
Chambers UK has placed Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co in 43 categories, 17 of which are in Band 1.
Supreme Court holds patent infringement not ‘turpitude’/‘illegality’ for the purposes of the defence of illegality
The infringement of a patent does not constitute ‘turpitude’ for the purposes of the defence of illegality (Les Laboratoires Servier & another v Apotex Inc).
Guidance on interaction between UK and EPO proceedings and scope of cross-undertakings in damages required for injunctions
In Actavis v Pharmacia, Arnold J issued two important judgments regarding the interaction between UK patent actions and opposition proceedings at the EPO.
According to The Legal 500, following the merger of Wragge & Co and Lawrence Graham in May 2014, the firm has ‘more strength and depth as well as wider international coverage’.