Eli Lilly and Company v Human Genome Sciences Inc, Patents Court, 18 July 2014,  EWHC 2404 (Pat), Warren J
The unenviable task of implementing the CJEU ruling in Eli Lilly v HGS (C-493/12 here, on the meaning of “protected” by a basic patent, and reported in the EPLAW Patent Blog here) fell to Warren J (who is not a patent specialist but hears the occasional patents case). Following a hearing which took place over two days in May and June 2014 (in which both parties argued strenuously the CJEU had found in their favour), in a judgment dated 18 July 2014 Warren J has refused to grant the declaration sought by Lilly that any SPC granted to HGS for Lilly’s antibody, tabalumab, (based on HGS’ patent) would be invalid.
Warren J considered that the CJEU ruling was unclear and unsatisfactory in many respects. However, in his view, the most important parts of the decision were: (i) paragraph  where the CJEU had held that the protection conferred by a basic patent was to be assessed with reference to the “extent of the invention” covered by the patent as provided for by section 125 UK Patents Act and Article 69 EPC and (ii) paragraph  where the CJEU had again expressly rejected the infringement test.