PHARMACEUTICAL IP

Pharmaceuticals

Evolve is a pharmaceutical specialist IP firm, offering comprehensive intellectual property services built on the experience of our attorneys in both in-house and private practice settings. We provide strategic counsel throughout the innovation lifecycle, from drafting and portfolio management to licensing, due diligence, and contentious matters.

Evolve is built on the deep expertise of our qualified attorneys in the pharmaceutical and biotech sector. With our personalized approach, scientific backgrounds and industry insights, we deliver tailored and pragmatic IP solutions for our pharmaceutical and biotechnology clients.

Sector insights...

The morality (and patentability) of inventions derived by immoral means (T 2510/18)

Should patents be granted for inventions born from unethical practices, even if they offer significant societal benefits?

Alnylam v. Moderna and the judicious use of definitions: The European perspective

When drafting a patent, seemingly innocuous “boilerplate” definitions in the description can drastically narrow your claims, as demonstrated by the Alnylam v Moderna case in the US, highlighting the critical need for precise language to protect your invention.

Freedom to operate versus patentability in biotech: What the difference is and why it matters

Discover the critical difference between patentability and freedom to operate in biotech, and why true innovation is your best strategy for navigating the complex intellectual property landscape.

Event report: C5 Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation in Europe (Day 1), Plausibility, UPC and antibody IP strategy

Navigating European pharma and biotech patent litigation is more complex than ever, with ongoing debates on plausibility, UPC intricacies, claim interpretation, and divergent strategies for antibody inventions.

Commercial success is a nothing-burger for the EPO in Wegovy patent inventive step analysis (T 1701/22, Obesity treatment with semaglutide)

Novo Nordisk’s recent setback with the European Patent Office (EPO) for semaglutide offers a critical lesson: even revolutionary drugs face patent rejection if their underlying composition, dose, and pH are deemed obvious in light of prior art, proving that commercial success alone cannot ensure patentability.

IP strategy for AI-assisted drug discovery

AI has been hailed as a potentially revolutionary tool for accelerating and enhancing the difficult and expensive process of drug discovery. Medicine perhaps represents the field in which AI has the most to offer humanity. However, the nascent field of AI-assisted drug design also highlights the need for IP strategy to be as forward-looking and…

No back-pedalling on prosecution disclaimers (Azurity v. Alkem, Fed. Cir. Case No. 23-1977)

In Azurity v. Alkem  the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the District of Delaware’s ruling that Alkem’s antibiotic formulation did not infringe patent claims owned by Azurity. The CAFC found that Azurity clearly and unmistakably disclaimed the presence of a key ingredient from the claimed formulation during prosecution. Given that Alkem’s formulation included this ingredient, the generic…

Use versus process patents: Implications for novelty and scope (T 1913/21)

The recent decision T 1913/21 highlights a crucial differentiation between second non-medical use claims and process claims. The Board of Appeal found that, according to the established case law, claims in which the technical effect of the invention occurs only as part of a process for producing a product, must be regarded as a process claim and…

The UPC’s approach to added matter and functional claims (Abbott v. Sibio Technology, UPC_CoA_382/2024)

The recent decision in Abbott v Sibio Technology (UPC_CoA_382/2024) offers valuable insights into the UPC’s approach to the interpretation of functional claim language and the ever-contentious topic of added matter. On both issues, the UPC broadly appears to have followed the EPO approach. However, the lack of any explicit indication from the Court of Appeal that it was…

The benefits and pitfalls of drug manufacturing IP (T 2543/22)

The Board of Appeal decision in T 2543/22 relates to a manufacturing method for preparing a therapeutic peptide. The Board of Appeal found that whilst various methods were known, the skilled person would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying them to produce the specific claimed peptide. The case highlights some interesting aspects of pharma…
View more Insights