Comments on: New Article – pharmaceutical polymorphs & patent strategy http://www.thinkipstrategy.com/ipthinktank/317/new-article-pharmaceutical-polymorphs-and-patent-strategy/ Trusted advisors to the world's most innovative companies Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:10:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Duncan http://www.thinkipstrategy.com/ipthinktank/317/new-article-pharmaceutical-polymorphs-and-patent-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-1220 Duncan Sun, 25 May 2008 21:57:25 +0000 http://localhost:100/thinkipstrategy/?p=317#comment-1220 <p>Thanks Kate.</p><p>Here's a link to a decision from the Scottish Court of Session which held that a claim to a polymorph of Tibolone with a certain purity was not obvious:</p><p><em><a href="http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008CSIH31.html" rel="nofollow">Arrow Generics Ltd v Akzo NB</a> (represented in Scotland by Organon Laboratories Ltd),</em> [2008] CSIH31</p><p>Thanks to <a href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2008/05/arrow-generics-v-akzo.html" rel="nofollow">IPKat </a>for the link.</p> Thanks Kate.

Here’s a link to a decision from the Scottish Court of Session which held that a claim to a polymorph of Tibolone with a certain purity was not obvious:

Arrow Generics Ltd v Akzo NB (represented in Scotland by Organon Laboratories Ltd), [2008] CSIH31

Thanks to IPKat for the link.

]]> By: Kate Beattie http://www.thinkipstrategy.com/ipthinktank/317/new-article-pharmaceutical-polymorphs-and-patent-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-1219 Kate Beattie Thu, 22 May 2008 12:27:43 +0000 http://localhost:100/thinkipstrategy/?p=317#comment-1219 <p>Duncan, re your recent article, as you may be aware, Pumfrey J expressed some thoughts about the validity of a patent for a crystalline form of clarithromycin in Abbott v Ranbaxy and others [2004] EWHC 2723 (decision of Mr. Justice Pumfrey of 19 November 2004).  The patent was held to be invalid at an interlocutory stage – but for reasons other than the lack of novelty of a crystalline form patent (which, he suggested, could be novel)</p> Duncan, re your recent article, as you may be aware,
Pumfrey J expressed some thoughts about the validity of a patent for a crystalline
form of clarithromycin in Abbott v Ranbaxy and others [2004] EWHC
2723 (decision of Mr. Justice Pumfrey of 19 November 2004).  The patent was held to be invalid at an interlocutory stage – but for reasons other than
the lack of novelty of a crystalline form patent (which, he suggested, could
be novel)

]]>