BREAKING: Puns at the ready, Mr Justice Birss delivers epic CIALIS judgment - We have long been building this blog, we are trying to present a complete and reliable information. ranging from hardware products to software that develops to facilitate your life, but as the gadget's increasingly sophisticated capabilities are increasingly also the menu that you must understand, in the blog
Austin Gadget we will review many gadget products from start speck and price, we will discuss first about BREAKING: Puns at the ready, Mr Justice Birss delivers epic CIALIS judgment hopefully information will give will give answer to your question to google, please refer to.
Articles :
BREAKING: Puns at the ready, Mr Justice Birss delivers epic CIALIS judgment
full Link :
BREAKING: Puns at the ready, Mr Justice Birss delivers epic CIALIS judgment
Article actavis,
Article AmeriKat,
Article cialis,
Article eli lilly,
Article icos,
Article mr justice birss,
Article patent infringement,
Article Patent invalidity,
Article Teva,
You can also see our article on:
BREAKING: Puns at the ready, Mr Justice Birss delivers epic CIALIS judgment
 |
| It's how long? ! |
A judgment of Arnoldian proportions has just landed on the AmeriKat's desk, but it is not from its namesake. It is instead from Mr Justice Birss. At an eye watering 113 pages consisting of 491 paragraphs, his decision in
Actavis v ICOS [2016] EWHC 1955 is recommended beach reading for those ready to jet off the south of France for their August holidays. Two patents were in issue - '181 (dosing) and '092 (formulation) relating to tadalafil. Tadalafil is the generic name for the product sold under the brand names CIALIS (for male erectile dysfunction) and ADCIRCA (for pulmonary arterial hypertension). The judge held at least Claim 7 of the '181 patent is valid and infringed and the '092 patent is invalid.
Although the AmeriKat is only just digesting the judgment, there are treats in store for everyone including:
- What is the the role of Teva v Leo?
- Can a generic's "clearing the way" revocation action really not be construed as a threat to infringe the patent (when coupled with a contingent intention to launch a product if the action succeeds)?
- The role of chemical names and priority documents.
- The ability to exercise your pun-tastic skills in talking about this decision.
Assuming the AmeriKat can last until the end of the judgment, she will be back with a more fulsome summary later on.
0 comments:
Posting Komentar