AIPPI Event Report: Are you sitting comfortably....? Patent Roundup 2017

The end of this year's Michaelmas term for the AmeriKat was characterized by the usual unpredictability and busyness that has almost become a holiday tradition over the last few years.  This meant that she missed out in her usual favorite pre-holiday events from Christmas parties to AIPPI's favorite yearly round-up.  But the President of the UK Group of AIPPI and long-standing Kat friend, Justin Watts (WilmerHale) was there to report for readers.  Over to Justin:

"AIPPI UK's annual Christmas present is in the form of a round-up of the year's patent cases.  As for the past few years, Andrew Lykiardopoulos QC was both chef and maître d', serving up a feast of goodies to an appreciative audience.  HoganLovells generously hosted the event (and their mulled wine and mince pies were especially appreciated). 

 Andrew's talk reviewed the patents year in the UK courts, and was by its nature an overview.  I’ve taken even more of an overview in this note: highlighting the topics, and leaving it for readers to go and do their own digging (on the IPKat) if they want more detail. 

 Andrew noted that it had been a relatively good year for rightsholders, with more winning than losing.  He took the audience on a rapid and entertaining gallop through the year’s cases, giving personal insights especially on Actavis.  As in previous years, 

Andrew's handout provides a valuable source of reference (especially for IP diploma students), setting out as it does the principle quotes from the year's major cases.  This year's will be available shortly on the AIPPI UK website.  Andrew’s note, and Bristows “Review of the Year” when Brian [Cordery] finishes it, are the two must-haves short guides to patents for anyone with an exam coming up.  

Andrew started with the year’s SPC cases (Abraxis, Teva v Gilead, Teva v Merck, Sandoz v GD Searle) before going on to the legal highlights: Actavis, AbbVie and Unwired Planet.  He noted on Actavis in particular that important questions remain to be worked out, and in particular the status of the “golden thread” (i.e. what is in or obvious from the prior art, cannot infringe.)  

On Actavis, Andrew also took the audience through the subsequent cases that have referred to it (Generics v Yeda, Illumina v Premaitha, Fisher v ResMed).  He then commented on some decisions of lesser importance but still worthy of note (Shanks (inventors' remuneration), Generics v Teva (CGK and multiple experts),  Accord (title to priority), Chugai (validity of foreign IP))."