Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
- Litigation / Dispute Resolution (19)
- Company/Commercial (9)
- Employment (9)
- Intellectual Property (9)
- Pharma/Biotech (7)
- In-House (6)
- Public Sector/Local Authority (5)
- Clinical/Medical Negligence (4)
- Competition/EU (4)
- Information Technology (3)
- Regulatory and compliance (3)
- Human Rights (2)
- Pensions (2)
- Charities (1)
- Consumer/Retail (1)
- Corporate (1)
- Energy (1)
- Financial services (1)
- Insurance/reinsurance (1)
- Licensing/Gaming/Betting (1)
- Personal Injury (1)
- Telecoms (1)
- Transport (Including aviation and shipping) (1)
Sort By: Newest first | Oldest first
Skilled person would not have had a sufficient expectation that test outcome would be successful...
With more pharmaceutical products coming off-patent, boundaries will be pushed.
R (Richmond Pharmacology Ltd) v Health Research Authority. Site fails clarity test.
Judgment highlights difficulties for companies in developing food products with benefits.
It is often said that getting a good night’s sleep is the secret to success. But what happens to those whose working pattern results in their sleep being fragmented, irregular or minimal?
When a claim can be based on someone else’s disability.
‘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.
£27m award for delays to generic capsules launch is upheld.
Decision clears the way for the launch of ‘generic’ patches...
The Act aims to make support more consistent across England. It will be implemented in two phases.
SPCs and combination products: basic patent on a sole ingredient cannot double as basic patent for combination
On 12 March 2015 the CJEU gave its ruling in Actavis v Boehringer Ingelheim, yet another reference from the UK courts regarding the interpretation of the SPC Regulation 469/2009.
It has never been more crucial for both contracting authorities and suppliers to ensure they are familiar with the changes brought about by the Public Contracts Regulations 2015.
Arnold J has delivered a solution to the issue of a patent with claims in the ‘Swiss form’ but this is unlikely to be the last word in the saga. Life sciences companies – watch this space.
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.
People have responded to the technological revolution by working longer hours and refusing to leave the office behind even when they can be prised from the desk.
Does the fact that a person is obese mean they are, or could be, ‘disabled’ for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010?
The Court of Appeal has unanimously held that a parent company was not liable for industrial disease suffered by an employee of a subsidiary.
In a recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, the European Patent Office has shed some light upon the boundaries of the prohibition against double patenting.
In Rose, the Administrative Court considered whether a CCG had acted unlawfully in failing to follow guidance issued by NICE.