Social:Arrow declaration
In UK patent litigation, an Arrow declaration is a declaration or order sought, for reasons of legal certainty, from a court that a product (or process) to be launched was old (i.e., not novel) or obvious in patent law terms at a particular date, so that the product (or process) cannot be affected by (i.e., cannot infringe) any later granted patent, which would itself necessarily also either lack novelty or inventive step.[1][2][3][4] The order is named after Arrow Generics Ltd. v Merck & Co Inc [2007] EWHC 1900 (Pat), in which it was originally suggested that this mechanism would be available as a declaratory relief.[1][3][5] Such a declaration was granted for the first time in Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Company Ltd v Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd [2017] EWHC 395 (Pat), Patents Court, England, 3 March 2017.[5] The defense is similar to a so-called "Gillette defense", i.e. "the argument in infringement proceedings (...) that the defendant's product implements prior art technology, such that any patent which it infringes must be invalid."[1]
See also
- Chilling effect
- Formstein defence
- Patent infringement under United Kingdom law
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Brazell, Lorna (1 September 2017). "Pre-emptive product patentability declarations". Pharmaceutical Patent Analyst 6 (5): 197–200. doi:10.4155/ppa-2017-0023. ISSN 2046-8954. PMID 28818023.
- ↑ Adair, Dominic (1 July 2018). "Arrow declarations: here to stay or a flash in the pan?". Pharmaceutical Patent Analyst 7 (4): 133–136. doi:10.4155/ppa-2018-0009. ISSN 2046-8954. PMID 29882713. https://www.future-science.com/doi/abs/10.4155/ppa-2018-0009.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 England, Paul (November 2019). "Arrow declarations: a creative new remedy, but what are its limits?". Pharmaceutical Patent Analyst 8 (6): 217–219. doi:10.4155/ppa-2019-0024. PMID 31718455.
- ↑ Gilbert, Penny; Kendall-Windless, Carissa; Rowlatt, Benjamin (2020). "Will Arrow Relief Take Flight?". Managing Intellectual Property 286: 45. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/manintpr286&div=15.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Daniels, Mark; Parsons, Giles (1 August 2017). "Patents Court grants declarations that dosage regimens were obvious". Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 12 (8): 624–626. doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpx112. ISSN 1747-1532. https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/article-abstract/12/8/624/4079509.
Further reading
- Powles, Julia (March 2017). "United Kingdom Patent Decisions 2016". International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 48 (2): 179–183. doi:10.1007/s40319-017-0557-2.
- ""Arrow Declarations": Decision of the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) 12 January 2017 – Case No. [2017] EWCA Civ 1". International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 48 (6): 728. September 2017. doi:10.1007/s40319-017-0625-7.
- Strath, Janet; Jacob, Reuben (1 March 2018). "Actavis v Lilly: the madness begins". Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 13 (3): 169–171. doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpx237.
- Trigg, Robyn (March 2020). "United Kingdom Patent Decisions 2019". International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 51 (3): 341–361. doi:10.1007/s40319-020-00913-2.
- Jacob, Robin (2020). "Injunctions in Patent Cases". Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte (Carl Heymanns Verlag) (3): 97–101.
 |  |
