header-logo header-logo

Patent

20 November 2014
Issue: 7631 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Les Laboratoires Servier and another v Apotex Inc and others [2014] UKSC 55, [2014] All ER (D) 328 (Oct)

In the course of a dispute regarding infringement of the claimant’s patent, the Supreme Court held that the illegality defence had not been engaged by the consideration that the defendant’s lost profits had been made by selling product manufactured in Canada in breach of the claimant’s Canadian patent. A patent was a public grant of state, it did not follow that the public interest was engaged by the breach of the patentee’s rights. There was no public policy that could justify in addition the forfeiture of the defendant’s rights. The infringement of foreign patent rights did not constitute a relevant illegality for the purpose of the defence of ex turpi causa.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll