Rachel Mumby
Partner – Patent litigation
- London / Dublin / UPC
- rachel.mumby@bristows.com
- +44 20 7400 8363 / +353 1 270 7755
“Rachel is a great asset to any case. She has always provided clear and responsive advice, as well as carefully leading her team with technical fluency and strategic insight. She also coordinates well with lawyers from other jurisdictions, ensuring the best results for her clients.” (Chambers UK 2027)
Rachel is Co-Head of Bristows’ Life Sciences Sector and has more than 15 years’ experience advising clients on global patent litigation. Her work spans pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and medical devices, as well as technologies ranging from glass fibres to beer-dispensing machines. With a background in chemistry, she has a particular interest in the chemical and life sciences sectors.
Rachel’s work encompasses working on pre-litigation strategic issues as well as active litigation before the courts in the UK and UPC. She also plays a pivotal role in the coordination of multi-jurisdictional patent litigation. As part of this work she has gained experience in a range of issues such as obtaining interim injunctions, conducting litigation experiments, working with a wide range of technical experts and advising on patent entitlement issues.
For much of her career, Rachel has worked with leading pharmaceutical companies, helping them to develop strategies for the defence and enforcement of patents relating to blockbuster medicines and medical devices. Her work therefore involves working closely with lawyers and patent attorneys across the globe to ensure careful technical and legal alignment of litigation and prosecution matters.
Rachel’s work highlights include:
- Sandoz v Novo Nordisk – litigation in the UPC relating to patent protection for OZEMPIC (semaglutide).
- Sun Pharma v Incyte – litigation in the High Court relating to deuruxolitinib and patent protection relating to JAKAVI (ruxolitinib).
- Celltrion v Genentech & Novartis – litigation in the High Court relating to a XOLAIR (omalizumab) formulation.
- Teva and Samsung Bioepis v Novartis – litigation in the High Court relating to LUCENTIS (ranibizumab) pre-filled syringes, also multi-jurisdictional coordination.
- Heineken v Anheuser Busch Inbev v Heineken – litigation in the High Court relating to polymer chemistry of kegs used in beer dispensing machines.
- OCV v Jushi – litigation before the Court of Appeal relating to composition of glass fibres (guidance on anticipation relating to numerical ranges).
- Fisher & Paykel v Resmed – litigation in the High Court relating to CPAP masks.
- Good Technology Corporation v MobileIron – litigation in the High Court relating to software application.
- Hospira v Novartis – litigation in the High Court and Court of Appeal relating to a dosage regimen relating to ACLASTA, also multijurisdictional coordination. Includes notable preliminary injunction (PI) decision from the Court of Appeal on the availability of PIs when a patent has been held to be invalid at first instance.
- Top 5 pharmaceutical companies v multiple generics/biosimilar companies (coordination of litigation and pre-litigation strategies relating to several blockbuster medicines).
Rachel is a co-editor of the Kluwer Patent Blog.