IPKat: Further analysis of Generics (t/a Mylan) v Yeda and Teva
No items found.
July 18, 2012
In addition to an earlier summary by Darren Smyth of the ruling in Generics (t/a Mylan) v Yeda and Teva, Darren has provided further analysis for the IPKat.
Darren's article looks at the issue of the interpretation and clarity of two features in the patent claims.
The case relates to a European patent owned by Yeda (for which Teva is exclusive licensee) for Teva’s glatiramer acetate product marketed under the trademark Copaxone.
Recent Case Reports
No language change at Central Division
08 October 2026
Proceedings before the UPC Central Division must be conducted in the language in which the patent was granted. There is no legal basis to change that language. In a revocation action concerning a German-language patent, the Paris Central Division rejected a request to switch the language of proceedings to English, and also rejected a subsidiary request to allow written submissions in English and hold the hearing in English, holding that Article 49(6) UPCA permits no derogation and reflects a deliberate legislative choice.
Criteria for obtaining an order to produce evidence under Rule 190
07 October 2026
This appeal judgment clarifies that Rule 190 orders to produce evidence require three cumulative conditions: specificity, necessity and proportionality, and cannot be used for fishing expeditions. The Court of Appeal confirmed that first instance judges enjoy a broad margin of discretion when assessing such requests, and upheld the order requiring production of two fabric samples for ballistic testing. Both the appeal and the cross-appeal were dismissed.
Court of Appeal focuses on the technical effect to determine added matter
30 September 2026
The Court of Appeal provided guidance on their approach to assessing added subject matter, highlighting that the technical effect underlying the invention and how the claimed and unclaimed features contribute thereto is central to the analysis.