Patents: Review of the year

<p><em>“The ‘incredible’ Dominic Adair is a clear leader in patent litigation, with peers admiring his wealth of knowledge, particularly when it comes to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors.” </em>(Who’s Who Legal 2023)</p> <p>In the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sector, Dominic has worked on all aspects of the drug life cycle, from freedom to operate analyses and early-stage risk assessment of generic competition to complex end-stage litigation, SPCs and anti-trust issues. A technical background in the life sciences makes Dominic comfortable handling the most complex disputes in this area. His cases have required him to spend years on the scientific concepts underlying some of the most valuable patents in the world, including deprotection reactions in the synthesis of acyl compounds and the regulation of immune checkpoint inhibitors. But his experience of technology is truly varied, including computer hardware, electronic control systems, petrochemical and mechanical engineering and consumer products, including triple-blade razors, bag-in-bottle beer kegs and reduced-harm cigarette filters.</p> <p>Dominic has handled cases across the range of tribunals in the UK and the EPO and has coordinated litigation across Europe and the world. This coordination work, for both rights holders and defendants, has been a mainstay of Dominic’s practice for 20 years, enabling to develop the broadest possible outlook on strategy and a comprehensive tactical playbook. A natural team player, he has assisted clients in bringing patent cases all across the world, from the constitutional courts of Mexico to the Supreme Court of India.</p> <p>Representative UK cases include:</p> <ul> <li>Celltrion v Biogen, Roche & Genentech – revocation action in the Patents Court in relation to biosimilar rituximab product.</li> <li>Gillette v Wilkinson Sword – defence of infringement claim in the Patents Court and counterclaim for revocation of Gillette patent relating to connectors for triple-blade razor cartridges.</li> <li>Heineken v Anheuser-Busch Inbev – revocation claim in the Patents Court against ABI patents relating to bag-in-bottle dispensing technology and defence of infringement counterclaim.</li> <li>Innovia v Frito-Lay – entitlement dispute and breach of confidence action in the Patents Court including jurisdiction challenge involving the Eastern District of Texas.</li> <li>Merck Serono v AbbVie – revocation action in the Patents Court in relation to biosimilar adalimumab product.</li> <li>Novartis v Actavis – preliminary injunction proceedings and infringement claim in the Patents Court concerning the scope of the SPC for valsartan (Diovan®) in relation to combination products.</li> <li>Scientific Drilling v Gyrodata – revocation claim in the Patents Court against Gyrodata patents for methods of measuring tortuosity in oil well boreholes.</li> <li>Secretary of State for Health v Servier – defence of £200m damages claim brought by the UK Government for alleged breaches of competition law, including alleged abuse of dominant position by maintaining a patent for perindopril (Coversyl®) that was later held invalid.</li> <li>Tehrani v Hamilton – defence of infringement claim in the IPEC and counterclaim for revocation of Tehrani patent relating to electronic control systems for hospital ventilators.</li> <li>Truck-Align v Deans Systems – defence of infringement claim in the Patents Court and counterclaim for revocation of Truck-Align patent relating to manually-operated ramp assemblies.</li> <li>Whitaker Corp v FCI – defence of infringement claim in the Patents Court and counterclaim for revocation of Whitaker patent relating to impedance-matched backplane connectors for printed circuit boards.</li> </ul> <p>Representative coordination projects include:</p> <ul> <li>Assisting a large Swiss pharma company coordinate litigation on the patents involved in several projects, including: <ul> <li>Its top-selling hypertension drug across 128 countries</li> <li>Its combination therapy hypertension product across 77 countries</li> <li>Its top-3 product for the treatment of blood diseases across 32 countries</li> </ul> </li> <li>Assisting a medium-sized Swiss pharma company coordinate litigation on the patents surrounding its top-selling anaemia treatment, a non-biological complex drug, across Europe.</li> <li>Assisting a large Korean biosimilar maker coordinate defensive litigation during the launch of two antibody products across Europe.</li> </ul> <p>Dominic writes regularly on reported patent cases in the UK, EPO and UPC and is editor of Bristows’ annual review of patent cases. For several years he co-chaired C5’s Pharma and Biotech Patent Litigation Conference in Amsterdam and remains a regular conference attendee and presenter.</p> <p>Dominic is a member of CIPA, EPLAW and AIPPI and holds office as the Honorary Secretary and Vice-President of AIPPI UK. He also sits on the Membership Committee of AIPPI at the international level.</p>

<p>Nadine specialises in patent litigation and has advised on a range of complex disputes encompassing a variety of different subject matters. Nadine’s background in physics makes her particularly suited to work in the technology, telecommunications and engineering sectors. Her experience includes both patent infringement and validity work in a number of fields, ranging from consumer products to standard essential patents (SEPs), as well as FRAND and licence disputes.</p> <p>Nadine also has a lot of experience coordinating multi-jurisdictional actions in terms of both technical and strategic coordination for national and UPC claims.</p> <p>Some of Nadine’s work highlights include:</p> <ul> <li><em>Philips v HTC/ASUS</em>;<em> Philips v TCL</em>;<em> Philips v Xiaomi</em>;<em> Philips v Oppo</em> – coordinating and preparing technical SEP cases (telecoms) and FRAND cases for trial, defending jurisdiction challenges, obtaining AASI relief, and defending a claim to a licence defence.</li> <li><em>Network System Technologies v Texas Instruments</em> – acting for Texas Instruments in a patent revocation claim in the UK and coordinating on the parallel UPC action.</li> <li><em>Prysmian v Sterlite </em>– acting for Prysmian in a patent infringement and validity dispute relating to fibre optic cables. The action settled before trial.</li> <li><em>Fisher & Paykel v ResMed</em> – acting for ResMed in a patent infringement and validity action relating to medical devices, in particular, mechanical features of sleep apnoea masks.</li> <li><em>Garmin v Philips</em> – acting for Philips to defend a patent revocation claim and counterclaim for infringement in relation to GPS activity tracking devices.</li> <li><em>Unwired Planet v Samsung</em> – acting for Samsung in one of the technical SEP trials (telecoms).</li> <li><em>Good Technology v MobileIron</em> – acting for MobileIron to defend an infringement action and bring a revocation counterclaim in respect of two patents relating to computer security and data management. The action settled before trial.</li> </ul> <p>Nadine also has in-house experience, having been on secondment to the in-house legal department of a prominent internet services company where she assisted on commercial and litigation matters.</p> <p>Nadine has a good command of German and in 2016 spent three months on secondment at a leading IP law firm in Germany.</p>

<p>Katie has a wealth of experience in advising on and litigating patents and supplementary protection certificates within the life sciences sector.  She has worked on patent enforcement and validity matters for clients involving small molecule pharmaceuticals as well as biologics and medical devices.</p> <p>Katie’s litigation work has seen her advising clients on cases before the High Court and Court of Appeal as well as at the CJEU. More recently she was part of a team of internationally recognised lawyers advising on the first DNI action at the UPC.</p> <p>Throughout her career Katie has also assisted clients on litigation co-ordination projects, in which she manages IP litigation in a range of jurisdictions. She regularly works alongside lawyers and patent attorneys in other jurisdictions in Europe, Asia and Latin America.</p> <p>Katie is a key contributor to the annual review of patent cases which is published annually in the CIPA journal. She is also co-editor of the Bristows Biotech Review of the Year.</p> <p>Examples of Katie’s work include:</p> <ul> <li><em>Dr Hill v Touchlight Genetics Limited (and others) – </em>Acted for Touchlight in the successful defence of an entitlement challenge in the English Patents Court in relation to patents for in vitro synthesis of DNA.</li> <li><em>Lupin Healthcare Limited v Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA and Teva UK Limited v Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA</em> – Acted for Chiesi in defence and enforcement of formulation and use patent rights relating to Foster, a respiratory medicine.</li> <li><em>Glaxo Group Ltd & Ors v Vectura Limited</em> – Acted for Vectura in defence and enforcement of formulation patents relating to inhalable medicines.</li> <li><em>Teva UK Limited & another v Novartis Pharma AG & another</em> – Acted for Novartis in relation to its patent for a second medical use. Leading in the coordination of this action with parallel actions in other European countries.</li> <li>Defending a revocation action brought against the paediatric extension to the SPC for imatinib (<em>Teva v Novartis</em>). Coordination of this defence with the parallel actions in other European countries.</li> <li>Acting for Smith & Nephew in disputes relating to their Durafiber and Durafiber Ag products.</li> </ul>

<p><span data-teams="true"><span class="ui-provider a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z ab ac ae af ag ah ai aj ak" dir="ltr"><i>“Brian is the best: he’s really experienced and knows the life sciences patent litigation sector inside-out.” </i>(Chambers UK 2025)</span></span></p> <p>Since qualifying at Bristows in 1996, Brian’s focus has been on intellectual property dispute resolution. From the start of his career, Brian has been instructed by some of the world’s leading healthcare companies to defend and enforce the patents for their most successful products. With almost three decades of dedication to this area, there is hardly an argument or issue that Brian has not encountered. Since 2005, Brian has continuously handled the world-wide co-ordination of projects to manage the defence of patents and related rights for some of the world’s best-selling medicines ensuring that there is correctness, clarity and consistency in all countries. Brian knows that to succeed in such projects a multi-disciplinary team is required and that it is important to think globally but act locally. Brian’s work has involved numerous disease areas including immunology, oncology, endocrinology, neuroscience, dermatology and cardiology.</p> <p>Some of Brian’s work highlights include:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Valsartan</strong> – Acting for Novartis in relation to its patents and SPCs for Diovan®/Co-Diovan®, a very successful anti-hypertension medicine. This was a seven year project assisting Novartis with the defence and enforcement of its patents and SPCs/PTEs in over 40 countries. As part of the UK litigation, a reference to the CJEU was made on the scope of SPCs which led to the ruling on C-442/11 which still stands as good law today.</li> <li><strong>Imatinib</strong> – Acting for Novartis in relation to its patents and SPCs for Glivec® which revolutionised the treatment of certain types of cancer. Over the course of eight years, Brian led the team at Bristows assisting Novartis with the co-ordination of the defence and enforcement of IP rights in over 30 countries with a particular focus on challenges to the paediatric extension to the SPC for imatinib in Europe. The validity and infringement of Novartis’ second medical use patents for use of imatinib to treat GIST was also an important part of this project.</li> <li><strong>Deferasirox</strong> – Acting for Novartis in the defence of its patents and SPCs for Exjade®.  This involved UK litigation on challenges to the validity of (i) the paediatric extension granted to Novartis for deferasirox and (ii) a patent to a film-coated tablet for deferasirox as well as co-ordination across Europe including a successful application to the Dutch Court for a pan-European injunction.</li> <li><strong>Fremanezumab</strong> – Acting for Teva in the defence of a challenge in the English Court to its patents for Ajovy® – a CGRP antibody used to treat migraine and cluster headache.</li> <li><strong>Fasinumab</strong> – Acting for Teva and Regeneron in the English Patents Court in relation to anti-NGF antibodies being trialled for the treatment of osteoarthritis.</li> <li><strong>Fingolimod</strong> – Acting for Novartis in relation to its patents for Gilenya® used to treat multiple sclerosis. This included seeking a preliminary injunction from the English Patents Court on a patent application and co-ordination of litigation across Europe.</li> <li><strong>Dimethyl fumarate</strong> – Acting for Forward Pharma in litigation and EPO oppositions relating to DMF, the active ingredient in Tecfidera® used to treat multiple sclerosis. Forward concluded a settlement with Biogen in January 2017 which included a one-off payment of $1.25bn to Forward.</li> <li><strong>Travoprost </strong>– Acting for Alcon in the defence of a challenge in the English Patents Court and Court of Appeal to its patents for Travatan® used to treat glaucoma.</li> <li><strong>Doggybone DNA</strong> – Acting for Touchlight in the successful defence of an entitlement challenge in the English Patents Court to its patents relating to the in vitro synthesis of DNA.</li> <li>In the<strong> UPC –</strong> Brian was part of a team of internationally recognised lawyers which represented Novartis in the defence of a DNI action instigated in the Central Division (Milan) by Accord in relation to patents for Tasigna® (nilotinib).</li> </ul> <p>Brian was named Who’s Who Legal Patent Lawyer of the Year in 2018, 2019 and 2022. Brian is the co–author of an annual review of UK patent cases which is published annually in the CIPA Journal. He also teaches patent law on the Oxford University Diploma on Intellectual Property Law and Practice and is a member of the Exam Board of this Diploma. He is the co-editor of the Kluwer Patent Blog.</p>

<p>Sam advises clients across the technology sector in relation to patent disputes and strategy. His background in physics complements his work in the technology sector, including recent UK litigation relating to fibre-optic cables, wind turbines, and a software-as-a-service offering. Other technical experience includes work on wireless communication SEPs, wireless charging, fast charging, smartphone hardware, online advertising platforms and wireless headphones.</p> <p>Sam’s experience is international in nature. He spent 12 months in-house at a Japanese electronics company, co-ordinating global SEP / FRAND strategy and litigation and participating in bilateral licensing negotiations in relation to the company’s SEP portfolios. While there, he also advised on technical patent issues in relation to the company’s consumer products.</p> <p>Sam’s experience informs his client-focused approach to his practice and has also provided him with a deep understanding of the global FRAND / SEP landscape and practice that exists beyond litigation.</p> <p>Sam’s case highlights include:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy</strong> v GE Energy – UK litigation relating to the technology in GE’s Haliade-X offshore wind turbines.</li> <li><strong>Prysmian </strong>v Emtelle – UK litigation relating to fibre-optic cable technology.</li> <li><strong>Prysmian </strong>v Sterlite – UK litigation relating to fibre-optic cable technology.</li> <li>Orderly Mind Limited v <strong>Queue-it </strong>– UK litigation relating to the implementation of Queue-it’s online queueing platform.</li> <li><strong>Panasonic </strong>v Xiaomi and OPPO – SEP / FRAND litigation relating to Panasonic’s portfolio of 3G and LTE SEPs.</li> </ul>

<p>Nicholas’ background in physics gives him a particular interest in scientific and technological work. Nicholas has over ten years’ experience working with a broad range of technical subject matters including pharmaceutical products and medical devices, fibre-optic and mobile telecommunications technology (including Standard Essential Patents), and electromagnetic methods for detecting oil or gas.</p> <p>In recent years Nicholas has advised on the interaction between patent and competition law as it has developed in the field of Standard Essential Patents and FRAND licensing. As part of this work, Nicholas has also been involved in jurisdiction challenges, assisting with cases before German, French and UK Courts.</p> <p>In particular, Nicholas has recently advised clients in relation to:</p> <ul> <li>Standard Essentiality / Validity of patents.</li> <li>Availability of preliminary injunctions and interim licences in FRAND cases.</li> <li>Novel aspects of patent infringement, including “kit of parts” law and territoriality issues.</li> </ul> <p>Additionally, Nicholas has been on secondment at a major global video game company where he assisted with general commercial and intellectual property matters. This, together with his experience in multi-jurisdictional litigation, has provided Nicholas with additional expertise when managing and coordinating complex litigation.</p> <p>Nicholas writes for the Kluwer and EPLAW Patent Blog.</p>

<p>Aida is a <a href="https://www.bristows.com/expertise/litigation-dispute-resolution/patent-litigation/">patent</a> dispute specialist, working predominantly in the <a href="https://www.bristows.com/expertise/sectors/life-sciences/">life sciences</a> sector as well as other areas like consumer products. Aida has experience in patent disputes before the English Courts. She also has many years’ experience coordinating litigation in numerous jurisdictions, including across Europe, Brazil, India and China. This relates to inventions involving small-molecules, antibody pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Aida enjoys assisting clients with the development and application of cross-border litigation strategy. She often works closely with local counsel and patent attorneys in various jurisdictions to ensure a cohesive litigation approach. As well as her disputes practice, Aida is also experienced in patent advisory work, providing freedom to operate advice.</p> <p>Aida’s experience includes:</p> <ul> <li>Coordinating litigation across Europe, Brazil, India and China in relation to a small molecule medicine for diabetes.</li> <li>Devising litigation strategy across Europe and Japan in relation to an antibody medicine for wet AMD.</li> <li>Coordinating litigation across Europe and China in relation to a small molecule medicine in the neurology field.</li> <li><strong>Merck Sharp & Dohme v Shionogi – </strong>Defence of patent revocation proceedings in respect of Markush claims and a treatment for HIV.</li> </ul> <p>Aida also has in-house insight through a secondment to a global pharmaceutical company working on a range of patent litigation matters across the world.</p> <p>Aida is passionate about inclusion and is a founding committee member of Bristows’ Lyda Network, which is dedicated to celebrating race, ethnicity and culture in the firm. In this role, she has spearheaded several internal initiatives, including Bristows’ “My Name Is” campaign which promoted awareness of the importance of correct name pronunciation.</p>