Skip Navigation


Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases Advance Access originally published online on October 14, 2009
Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases 2009 126(11-12):828-857; doi:10.1093/rpc/rcp032
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
126/11-12/828    most recent
rcp032v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Crown Copyright

[2009] R.P.C. 23

Generics (UK) Ltd v Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co Ltd

Court of Appeal

(Ward, Jacob and Lloyd L.JJ.): 9, 10 June and 2 July 2009

[2009] EWCA Civ 646, [2009] R.P.C. 23

Patent—Application for declaration of invalidity—Enantiomeric compound—Lack of novelty—Lack of inventive step—Patent held valid—Appeal to Court of Appeal—Obvious to try

Supplementary Protection Certificate—Declaration of invalidity—Certificate held valid—Appeal to Court of Appeal—Whether first marketing authorisation for enantiomeric active ingredient—Earlier marketing authorisation for racemate


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.