tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5534967056490015498..comments2024-03-29T13:59:42.629+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Warner-Lambert v Actavis Mark 4: harmony between parties in ‘lyrical’ patent disputeVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-11894437861520801782015-09-03T08:51:16.402+01:002015-09-03T08:51:16.402+01:00There are plenty of logical theories for those wit...There are plenty of logical theories for those with a bit of imagination and the willingness to seek out the publicly available facts. I see no reason, however, for anyone 'in the know' to share the actual reason. So, wonder away!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-21801228527854040942015-09-03T08:51:14.833+01:002015-09-03T08:51:14.833+01:00There are plenty of logical theories for those wit...There are plenty of logical theories for those with a bit of imagination and the willingness to seek out the publicly available facts. I see no reason, however, for anyone 'in the know' to share the actual reason. So, wonder away!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-58156543638558481412015-09-03T03:13:52.301+01:002015-09-03T03:13:52.301+01:00IPKat your insight on the case has been such a gre...IPKat your insight on the case has been such a great help for me.<br /><br />I was wondering if anyone came up with a logical theory on why the SPCs on the original EP0641330 patent were allowed to lapse in the larger EU markets (GB, DE..)? <br /><br />I know that the patent protecting pain indications is of higher value to Warner-Lambert/Pfizer, but it doesn't explain why they wouldn't wait for it to be contested opposed to not making the payments. The potential added protection for Lyrica is enormous and a company like Pfizer could easily afford it. <br /><br />Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-63677389260798129622015-04-15T21:01:42.405+01:002015-04-15T21:01:42.405+01:00Must be a worthless patent then, what with doctors...Must be a worthless patent then, what with doctors being such rebels and all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-39382092313585233252015-04-15T16:10:07.873+01:002015-04-15T16:10:07.873+01:00What is Pfizer's remedy if the guidance is ign...What is Pfizer's remedy if the guidance is ignored by doctors? If doctors fail to follow the guidance then it seems that there is no breach of the order (and therefore no contempt). The order merely requires the NHS guidance to be issued. What status does the guidance have? Can doctors be liable for failing to follow the guidance? Event if they are, presumably Pfizer does not have standing to enforce?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-64475559311400023372015-03-05T17:00:48.745+00:002015-03-05T17:00:48.745+00:00MAGIC!!!!MAGIC!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-73942107040443750172015-03-04T23:32:54.834+00:002015-03-04T23:32:54.834+00:00If the first patent covered use for treatment of n...If the first patent covered use for treatment of neuropathic pain, how can the patent for the second medical use also be for the treatment for neuropathic pain? touching clothnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-90383651970476230702015-03-04T21:52:53.068+00:002015-03-04T21:52:53.068+00:00Attempts to belittle the efforts of Pfizer and to ...Attempts to belittle the efforts of Pfizer and to give the judge credit for the existence of these proceedings that provide "the best solution" are not justified.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-66050047365503583632015-03-04T21:30:02.267+00:002015-03-04T21:30:02.267+00:00Not to worry, you can't be accused of being co...Not to worry, you can't be accused of being consistent.<br /><br />Looking forward to your third fanciful reason as to why it is a sore loser comment.<br /><br />Maybe you have an analogy too?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-7940714911081052562015-03-04T21:04:29.702+00:002015-03-04T21:04:29.702+00:00Anonymous @ 20:24,
You are "ridiculing"...Anonymous @ 20:24,<br /><br />You are "ridiculing" a commentator on another thread who got the best of your poor posts...?<br /><br />And you wonder why it comes across as being a sore loser type of comment?<br /><br />I will say this for you: you are surely consistent.<br /><br />(that's not a good thing, by the way, not here in this aspect)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-55896673144816210362015-03-04T20:24:19.047+00:002015-03-04T20:24:19.047+00:00to 19:27
No, it was a plain and simple sarcastic ...to 19:27<br /><br />No, it was a plain and simple sarcastic comment ridiculing the commentator who argued with an analogy rather than the facts. Having said that, I am quite pleased with it and feel it summarised the whole case quite nicely.<br /><br />Not sure why it comes across as a sore loser unless you think i am suggesting the court of appeal will overturn this particular ruling when I was referring to the earlier pronouncements from Arnold which have been appealed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-22849965514017420422015-03-04T19:30:06.900+00:002015-03-04T19:30:06.900+00:00(as far as reasonably possible) = except where man...(as far as reasonably possible) = except where mandated by law or professional obligation = medical emergency?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-80049843662427582272015-03-04T19:27:57.241+00:002015-03-04T19:27:57.241+00:00Anon of 09:55 - Is that a sore loser condition we ...Anon of 09:55 - Is that a sore loser condition we see there? This case had the most vitriolic comments, often in total disregard for the facts. We all remember the comments conflating this case with the very dissimilar Dutch case. This confirms the cases and respective facts cannot be fused.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-89887581758806499002015-03-04T17:29:20.621+00:002015-03-04T17:29:20.621+00:00Anyone want to guess what this particular snippet ...Anyone want to guess what this particular snippet means...?<br /><br />"(as far as reasonably possible)"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-34375978723186976942015-03-04T17:02:38.207+00:002015-03-04T17:02:38.207+00:00Agree with Darren - Arnold basically told Pfizer w...Agree with Darren - Arnold basically told Pfizer what it needed to do (in his 1st decision) and none of the parties resisted the application. The ambit of the cross undertaking is interesting though - potentially huge (unprecedented?) exposure for Pfizer. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-3103513392224313272015-03-03T10:20:16.256+00:002015-03-03T10:20:16.256+00:00Oh, I like what you did there Anon.
A very intere...Oh, I like what you did there Anon.<br /><br />A very interesting series of events here. Seems like all concerned got a reasonable result in the end though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-41908245705681364492015-03-03T09:55:02.983+00:002015-03-03T09:55:02.983+00:00This case is akin to a screw. Intially Arnold sta...This case is akin to a screw. Intially Arnold started hitting it with a hammer and wondered why everyone thought he was mad. He grudgingly accepted the offer from the parties of use of their toolbox, which was full of screwdrivers. As is common these days it took several attempts with a variety of screwdrivers to find the one that didn't slip and damage the screwhead.<br /><br />Now, the screw is basically in and doing its job, although it is now quite mangled and will be difficult to unscrew, leaving the Court of Appeal with the task of drilling it out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com