Basic patent meaning

This Checklist sets out the principal terms ordinarily found within an assignment of patents or patent applications. It functions as a checklist of points to consider and address when preparing, reviewing, or negotiating an assignment of patents or patent applications. It may likewise be tailored as heads of terms to capture the basic points agreed while a formal assignment is still being negotiated. How to use this Checklist This Checklist aims to flag issues that regularly surface during the negotiation and the drafting of the following types of agreements: Patent assignment—pro-assignor Patent assignment—pro-assignee For more detailed information on matters raised by this Checklist, see Practice Note: Assigning intellectual property rights. This Checklist can also, where appropriate, form the basis of a simple non-binding heads of terms. For guidance on how to do this, see Precedent: Heads of terms—commercial contracts. Checklist for proposed assignment of patents or patent applications Checklist — Further information — Notes (if any) Key commercial...

What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling makes plain that a misinterpretation of the underlying contractual structure exposes an arbitral award to challenge for being contrary to the public policy of India and for patent illegality apparent on the face of the award. The judge added that any later analysis or evaluation within the award is equally tainted by that foundational misunderstanding. Consequently, any findings anchored in that error cannot stand. The effect of the decision is that courts will refrain from revisiting contractual construction on the merits, yet they will intervene where the stance taken is unreasonable and cannot be reconciled with the evidence on record. The judge affirmed that an arbitrator must not go astray by pronouncing on the relevance of multiple contracts without first properly appreciating the framework that defines the parties' contractual relationship. A failure to grasp that framework leads to an untenable reading that no fair-minded or reasonable person would embrace. Such error renders the award patently unlawful because it amounts...

The decision in Generics (UK) Ltd v AstraZeneca AB [2025] EWHC 1012 (Pat) highlights the growing divergence between UK patent law and the European Patent Office’s approach, particularly in the aftermath of the Enlarged Board of Appeal’s G 2/21... Reassertion of the plausibility standard At the centre of the dispute was AstraZeneca’s patent for dapagliflozin, an inhibitor of the sodium-dependent glucose co-transporter protein SGLT2, employed to reduce blood glucose for treating type II diabetes... Although EP1506211 expired in May 2023, Generics UK, Teva and Glenmark pursued declarations of invalidity and the revocation of the related Supplementary Protection Certificates, SPC/GB13/021 and SPC/GB14/050. They argued that... the patent did not make it plausible that dapagliflozin is a (selective) SGLT2 inhibitor or is useful in the treatment of diabetes... the patent offered no technical contribution over the prior art (WO 01/27128), instead arbitrarily choosing dapagliflozin from a disclosed class of compounds... The court reaffirmed that both inventive step and sufficiency are grounded in...

This edition covers: Commercial Competition and state aid Data protection and cybersecurity Financial services Energy Environment Insurance and reinsurance IP Life sciences TMT International trade Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers Commercial Court of Justice of the EU rules on (un)fairness of profit-sharing clause in minor athlete’s contract In a significant judgment, the Court of Justice has confirmed that EU consumer protection rules extend to agreements with minors in the sports arena. A term requiring a young sportsperson to surrender a portion of future earnings to a talent agency upon turning professional can be classed as unfair under Directive 93/13/EEC (the EU UTCCD) where it is not clear and comprehensible about the financial impact of the promise made. Staying consistent with its consumer protection stance, the Court once more underscores the centrality of transparency. As gifted youngsters are signed at ever earlier stages, the ruling is...

Successive UK governments have aimed to cement the UK as one of the world’s most appealing settings for innovation and enterprise. To that end, a wide-ranging suite of tax incentives has been rolled out to encourage innovative companies, supporting both investors and trading entities, and assisting businesses at every phase of a business’s life cycle. These incentives include: R&D tax reliefs patent box business asset disposal relief (previously entrepreneurs’ relief) capital allowances for purchases of: knowhow patents, and plant and machinery venture capital trusts the enterprise investment scheme, and the seed enterprise investment scheme This Practice Note outlines the UK position on key tax considerations when determining how to structure an innovative business with international or global aspirations. The observations are general in nature and work on the basis of a clean slate; revisiting an existing IP ownership arrangement will inevitably demand a bespoke solution (notably...

Privilege—the basic principles This Practice Note sets out several of the issues that general privilege principles create for IP practitioners, together with specific statutory IP privilege provisions to keep in view. For broader guidance on privilege as a whole, see: Privilege and without prejudice communications—overview. Privilege exists because a client and a lawyer need to communicate frankly about protecting the client’s interests, without those conversations being disclosable to an opposing party or to the court. Although the following are not the only species of privilege, the two principal forms to focus on in the IP sphere are ‘legal advice privilege’ and ‘litigation privilege’. The rules governing each, as developed through case law, can operate with very different practical effects, and their consequences may diverge considerably. These two forms are sometimes grouped together as ‘legal professional privilege’, yet that phrasing is confusingly close to ‘legal advice privilege’ and will therefore not be used again in this note. Appreciating the differences between legal advice privilege and litigation privilege is of...

This Practice Note introduces supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) and paediatric extensions (PEs) in the UK. It outlines the reasons for their creation, when and how to apply, and how long they run. It also reviews leading rulings on SPCs from the courts of England and Wales, together with UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) guidance on SPC procedure... It further surveys numerous references to the Court of Justice on the interpretation of Regulation (EC) 469/2009 and Regulation (EC) 1610/96, which regulate SPCs for medicinal products and plant protection products within the EU (and, before Brexit, in the UK). The resulting Court of Justice decisions have defined the scope of SPC protection across the EU and the UK. For guidance on whether Court of Justice rulings bind UK courts, see Practice Note: Assimilated law—Assimilated case law. For a discussion confined to the EU SPC regime, see Practice Note: Supplementary protection certificates and paediatric extensions—EU... Supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) What is an SPC? An SPC prolongs the protection provided...