Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 20 AUGUST 2021

Neurim v Mylan: Take Two

Marks & Clerk
Marks & Clerk
Contributor
Marks & Clerk

Marks & Clerk

Marks & Clerk LLP was founded in 1887 by George Croydon Marks, who was joined in partnership by...

View firm profile
Explore more from Marks & Clerk

Last time we were writing about the Neurim v Mylan battle concerning Circadin ("Going out with a Bang, what a difference 2 days makes") it was Mylan with the upper hand ([2021] EWHC 530 (Pat)).

United KingdomIntellectual Property

Last time we were writing about the Neurim v Mylan battle concerning Circadin ("Going out with a Bang, what a difference 2 days makes") it was Mylan with the upper hand ([2021] EWHC 530 (Pat)). Neurim had been successful in the UK trial ([2020] EWHC 3270 (Pat)) but then lost that patent at the EPO by withdrawing their appeal (following negative indications at the oral proceedings). Fast-forward to a busy last week of court term and Mr Justice Mellor (in a judgment dated 2 August 2021) has given Neurim a fighting chance of obtaining an injunction against Mylan by agreeing that Neurim can have an expedited preliminary issue trial ([2021] EWHC 2198 (Pat)).

This situation has arisen because a divisional patent (EP 3 103 443) granted on 30 June 2021 (but expires 12 August 2022). Neurim promptly sued Mylan on the new divisional and are asserting that, because they were successful at the prior UK trial, Mylan are estopped from asserting invalidity or non-infringement. The

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.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from