Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v Baker Norton Inc.
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1999 |
| Year | 1999 |
| Court | Chancery Division (Patents Court) |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
27 cases
-
Actavis UK Ltd and Others v Eli Lilly & Company
...to 9–103. The main cases where consideration has been given to the issue are Bristol Myers Squibb Co v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals Inc [1999] RPC 253, Rohm & Haas Co v Collag Ltd [2002] FSR 28 and Kirin-Amgen (see the passage at [35] quoted above). Strictly speaking, the statements about p......
-
Actavis Ltd v Merck & Company Inc. (Costs)
...7 Swiss form claims have been long accepted in the UK, see Wyeth [1985] RPC 545 and the “BMS” case, Bristol-Myers Squibb v Baker Norton [1999] RPC 253 at [44] (Jacob J at first instance) and [2001] RPC 1 Court of Appeal (at [37] per Aldous LJ and [80–81] per Buxton LJ). For convenience we......
-
Digipos Store Solutions Group Ltd v Digi International Inc.
...Howe and Mr Floyd agree that there is no binding authority on this issue in English jurisprudence. In Bristol Myers Squibb v Baker Norton [1999] RPC 253 at 274–275, Jacob J pointed out the problems which would arise were file wrapper estoppel part of our law. Mr Howe argues that in Rohm & H......
-
InterPharma Pty Ltd v Hospira, Inc (No 5)
...Pty Ltd v Fei Yu (t/as Jewels 4 Pools) (No 2) [2013] FCA 187; 100 IPR 188 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals Inc [1999] RPC 253 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v F H Faulding & Co Ltd [2000] FCA 316; 97 FCR 524 Britax Childcare Pty Ltd v Infa-Secure Pty Ltd (No 4) [2015] FCA 651......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
-
Guide On Patent Infringement Laws: A Global Perspective
...(OJ 1989 L 401/57) which is further implemented by the EEC member states. In Bristol Myers Squibb v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals [ 1999 ] RPC 253, Jacob J held that since there was no distinction between Articles 25 and 26 of the CPC and the relevant provisions of section 60, it was easier ......
1 books & journal articles
-
INTERPRETING PATENT CLAIMS: SOME THOUGHTS ON THE UK KIRIN-AMGEN DECISION
...was not foreseeable at the time of the application or where the amendment bears only a “tangential” relation to the equivalent. 70 [1999] RPC 253 at [52]. 71 Cf practical accessibility when deciding the issue of inventive step. Contra practical accessibility when deciding the issue of novel......