This browser is not actively supported anymore. For the best passle experience, we strongly recommend you upgrade your browser.
| 1 minute read

Neurim's success #2

Marcus Smith J has put the further "trial" of Neurim v Mylan to bed with a short 14 paragraph judgment which concludes that he will not alter course from his original "Main Judgment".  So, the divisional patent is valid and infringed and permission to appeal has been refused.  However, just as those suffering from insomnia get up in the night, this is unlikely to be the last time a soothing story from the judicial bench is needed.

When will this dispute reawaken?  

Well, Marcus Smith J has offered the parties a hearing, paragraph 14 states "I consider that it is appropriate to offer the parties the opportunity, if either one of them wishes to take it, of appearing before me to persuade me to follow a different course. That is the normal course where a ruling is given on the papers, and without an oral hearing, which is the case here".  

Alternatively, Mylan will now be able to pursue an application for permission to appeal at the Court of Appeal and seek to revive its chances of avoiding an injunction.

What is certain is that there will be a further instalment. 

To understand this dispute a little better see this article about the preliminary issues trial and links back to earlier in this epic saga. 

I am not persuaded that the Main Judgment was wrong, even in light of the additional submissions Mylan has made. I am also satisfied that it would be an error, on my part, to seek to expand upon the Main Judgment, in order to explain why I am satisfied that it should stand as the judgment and outcome of these proceedings.


litigation & disputes, life sciences, epo patent oppositions