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. The order is named after Arrow Generics Ltd. v Merck & Co Inc EWHC 1900 (Pat), in which it was originally suggested that this mechanism would be available as a declaratory relief. Such a declaration was granted for the first time in Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Company Ltd v Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd EWHC 395 (Pat), Patents Court, England, 3 March 2017.
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."
See also
References
- ^ 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. S2CID 46983781.
- ^ 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. S2CID 207963034.
- Gilbert, Penny; Kendall-Windless, Carissa; Rowlatt, Benjamin (2020). "Will Arrow Relief Take Flight?". Managing Intellectual Property. 286: 45.
- ^ 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.
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. S2CID 159191748.
- ""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. S2CID 189820848.
- 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. S2CID 214460965.
- Jacob, Robin (2020). "Injunctions in Patent Cases". Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte (3). Carl Heymanns Verlag: 97–101.
  | This article relating to law in the United Kingdom, or its constituent jurisdictions, is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |