Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 25 SEPTEMBER 2017

Actavis V Eli Lilly - Should We Have Seen It Coming?

Gowling WLG
Gowling WLG
Contributor
Gowling WLG

Gowling WLG

The firm The firm’s lawyers speak English, French, Russian and Ukrainian. The firm’s client base...

View firm profile
Explore more from Gowling WLG

The UK Supreme Court's 12 July 2017 judgment in Actavis v Eli Lilly is undoubtedly a landmark decision, re-steering UK law regarding patent infringement by introducing a doctrine of equivalents.

United KingdomIntellectual Property

The UK Supreme Court's 12 July 2017 judgment in Actavis v Eli Lilly is undoubtedly a landmark decision, re-steering UK law regarding patent infringement by introducing a doctrine of equivalents.

But a systematic review of the law in this area over the last two decades shows that the writing has long been on the wall, so to speak. Lord Neuberger's first instance judgment in the Kirin-Amgen case, as long ago as 2001, is particularly illuminative.

When seeking to understand how the courts will interpret Lord Neuberger's Actavis v Eli Lilly judgment, the best informed will understand what has come before, and why. To help condense this understanding, we have prepared an article looking at the evolution of the law in this area, and considering the light it throws on the likely path of the jurisprudence from here.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from