Actavis v Merck
The IPKat draws your attention to yesterday's Court of Appeal decision, delivered by Lord Justice Jacob, in Actavis v Merck. The case concerns the second medical use of a substance called finasteride, which inhibits the conversion of testosterone into one of its meta
bolites. Merck already had a patent over the substance for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia, which led to a challenge to its patent for the use of a different dose of the same substance for androgenic alopecia. Cue a detailed consideration of "Swiss Claims", including an examination of novelty, inventive step, and unpatentability for being a method of treating the human body.
Also at issue was the place of EPO decisions under the doctrine for stare decisis .
More to follow from the IPKat when he has had time to digest the case but, in the meantime he notes [in a fit of shameless self-promotion] that those who want to know more about the issues could do worse than come along to UCL Institute of Brand and Innovation Law's launch seminar (details here), where Lord Justice Jacob will be speaking about claims limited by use and Actavis.
bolites. Merck already had a patent over the substance for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia, which led to a challenge to its patent for the use of a different dose of the same substance for androgenic alopecia. Cue a detailed consideration of "Swiss Claims", including an examination of novelty, inventive step, and unpatentability for being a method of treating the human body.Also at issue was the place of EPO decisions under the doctrine for stare decisis .
More to follow from the IPKat when he has had time to digest the case but, in the meantime he notes [in a fit of shameless self-promotion] that those who want to know more about the issues could do worse than come along to UCL Institute of Brand and Innovation Law's launch seminar (details here), where Lord Justice Jacob will be speaking about claims limited by use and Actavis.