Arrow declaration

In UK patent litigation, an Arrow declaration is a declaration or order sought, for reasons of legal certainty, from a court that a product (or process) to be launched was old (i.e., not novel) or obvious in patent law terms at a particular date, so that the product (or process) cannot be affected by (i.e., cannot infringe) any later granted patent, which would itself necessarily also either lack novelty or inventive step. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]} The order is named after Arrow Generics Ltd. v Merck & Co Inc [2007] EWHC 1900 (Pat), in which it was originally suggested that this mechanism would be available as a declaratory relief. ^{[1] [3] [5]} Such a declaration was granted for the first time in Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Company Ltd v Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd [2017] EWHC 395 (Pat), Patents Court, England, 3 March 2017. ^[5]

The defense is similar to a so-called "Gillette defense", i.e. "the argument in infringement proceedings (...) that the defendant's product implements prior art technology, such that any patent which it infringes must be invalid." ^[1]

See also

• Chilling effect
• Formstein defence
• Patent infringement under United Kingdom law

References

1. Brazell, Lorna (1 September 2017). "Pre-emptive product patentability declarations". Pharmaceutical Patent Analyst. 6 (5): 197–200. doi: 10.4155/ppa-2017-0023 . ISSN   2046-8954. PMID   28818023.
2. Adair, Dominic (1 July 2018). "Arrow declarations: here to stay or a flash in the pan?" . Pharmaceutical Patent Analyst. 7 (4): 133–136. doi:10.4155/ppa-2018-0009. ISSN   2046-8954. PMID   29882713. S2CID   46983781.
3. England, Paul (November 2019). "Arrow declarations: a creative new remedy, but what are its limits?". Pharmaceutical Patent Analyst. 8 (6): 217–219. doi:10.4155/ppa-2019-0024. PMID   31718455. S2CID   207963034.
4. Gilbert, Penny; Kendall-Windless, Carissa; Rowlatt, Benjamin (2020). "Will Arrow Relief Take Flight?". Managing Intellectual Property. 286: 45.
5. Daniels, Mark; Parsons, Giles (1 August 2017). "Patents Court grants declarations that dosage regimens were obvious" . Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 12 (8): 624–626. doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpx112. ISSN   1747-1532.

Further reading

• Powles, Julia (March 2017). "United Kingdom Patent Decisions 2016". International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law. 48 (2): 179–183. doi: 10.1007/s40319-017-0557-2 . S2CID   159191748.
• ""Arrow Declarations": Decision of the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) 12 January 2017 – Case No. [2017] EWCA Civ 1". International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law. 48 (6): 728. September 2017. doi: 10.1007/s40319-017-0625-7 . S2CID   189820848.
• Strath, Janet; Jacob, Reuben (1 March 2018). "Actavis v Lilly: the madness begins". Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 13 (3): 169–171. doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpx237.
• Trigg, Robyn (March 2020). "United Kingdom Patent Decisions 2019". International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law. 51 (3): 341–361. doi: 10.1007/s40319-020-00913-2 . S2CID   214460965.
• Jacob, Robin (2020). "Injunctions in Patent Cases". Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte (3). Carl Heymanns Verlag: 97–101.