Eli Lilly and CO v Genentech, Inc

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Case Management ◽  
General Knowledge ◽  
Summary Judgment ◽  
Special Circumstances ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Abstract H1 European patents – Revocation proceedings – Divisional Patents – Pharmaceuticals –Preliminary issue – Summary judgment - Issue estoppel – Abuse of process – UK designation of closely related patent held invalid at first instance – Permission granted to appeal to the Court of Appeal - Related patent now also held invalid in central proceedings before the EPO – Special circumstances – Injustice – Application to amend claims – Plausibility – Changes in common general knowledge – Case management

scholarly journals Should the courts assess the merits of a dispute referred to arbitration?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Edward Sharpe-Davidson
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Summary Judgment ◽  
Court Of Appeal

<p>Article 8(1) of Schedule 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996 requires courts to stay proceedings brought on a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement except where there is in fact no dispute. The Court of Appeal in Zurich v Cognition interpreted this exception as allowing the courts to assess whether the defendant has an arguable defence to the summary judgment proceedings brought against it. By allowing the court to assess the merits of a dispute referred to arbitration New Zealand is inconsistent with the theoretical and international understandings which require the independence of international arbitration. Court proceedings on a matter referred to arbitration have the potential to rob the parties of the benefits of persisting with arbitration. It is therefore necessary to consider alternatives to art 8(1) which are principally, comparatively and practically sound.</p>

Glaxo Group Ltd v Vectura Ltd

2019 ◽  
Vol 136 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-35
Keyword(s):  
Case Management ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Abstract Patents – European patents – Arrow declarations – Gillette defences – Strike out application – Justiciability – Threshold requirements – Discretion – Practice – Requirement for clarity – Case management – Appeal to Court of Appeal

scholarly journals Anti-arbitration injunctions: walking the tightrope

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 347-372
Author(s):  
Richard Garnett
Keyword(s):  
Case Management ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Controversial Issue ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
English Court ◽  
Law Courts ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Abstract Anti-arbitration injunctions are a controversial issue in the field of international arbitration. While some commentators decry them as an interference with the autonomy and independence of arbitrators, English and other common law courts steadfastly refuse to renounce them entirely. By reference to the framework established in recent decisions of the English Court of Appeal, the article seeks to forge a middle path between making anti-arbitration injunctions available on a discretionary, case management basis and prohibiting them in all cases. An approach that respects both the rights of arbitrators to determine their own jurisdiction and the rights of courts to protect parties from abuse of the arbitral process is advocated.

18 Appeals to the Court of Appeal

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brealey Mark ◽  
George Kyla
Keyword(s):  
Case Management ◽  
Management Decisions ◽  
High Court ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
General Rules ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Statutory Basis

This chapter discusses the legal principles applicable to appeals from the High Court to the Court of Appeal and appeals from the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) to the Court of Appeal, as well as the extent to which fresh evidence may be adduced in the Court of Appeal. It first considers the general rules about appeals from the High Court to the Court of Appeal, along with the statutory basis of the Court of Appeal’s power to hear appeals from the High Court. Other issues such as appellant’s notice, respondent’s statement of objection, appeals against case management decisions, and grounds for appeal are also examined. The chapter proceeds by analysing the procedure and grounds for appeal from the CAT to the Court of Appeal, before concluding with an assessment of the conditions that must be met to justify the reception of fresh evidence or a new trial in the Court of Appeal.

Part II United Kingdom, 6 How Has English Law Coped with the Lehman Collapse?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Briggs Lord Justice
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Case Management ◽  
Trial Judge ◽  
Regulatory Systems ◽  
Lehman Brothers ◽  
English Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The insolvent collapse of the Lehman Brothers group imposed unprecedented strains on the legal and regulatory systems of all the countries where its main business was based. This chapter’s author lived, during a period spanning 2009–2012, in the eye of this storm (in the respect that it has affected England). The author was the judge in charge, at least of the case management, since early on in the litigation following the collapse of the numerous applications for directions made by the administrators of Lehman Brothers International Europe (LBIE), the main hub company for Lehman group business in Europe, and one of the group’s three main trading companies worldwide. He was the first instance trial judge for all those applications, except the first, which was dealt with (to the complete satisfaction of the Court of Appeal) by Mr Justice Blackburne before his retirement. The amounts at stake were, by comparison with anything in which a lawyer is ordinarily involved, on the bench or at the bar, truly astonishing.

Case Management

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Hamer
Keyword(s):  
Case Management ◽  
Court Of Appeal

After a trial that lasted nearly seventy working days and which was itself a retrial, Tekin and Jisl were convicted of fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of goods. Konakli pleaded guilty on rearraignment. On the hearing of their appeals against conviction and in the case of Konakli’s sentence, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division (Judge LJ, and Nelson and McCombe JJ), under the heading ‘Case Management’.

scholarly journals Should the courts assess the merits of a dispute referred to arbitration?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Edward Sharpe-Davidson
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Summary Judgment ◽  
Court Of Appeal

<p>Article 8(1) of Schedule 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996 requires courts to stay proceedings brought on a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement except where there is in fact no dispute. The Court of Appeal in Zurich v Cognition interpreted this exception as allowing the courts to assess whether the defendant has an arguable defence to the summary judgment proceedings brought against it. By allowing the court to assess the merits of a dispute referred to arbitration New Zealand is inconsistent with the theoretical and international understandings which require the independence of international arbitration. Court proceedings on a matter referred to arbitration have the potential to rob the parties of the benefits of persisting with arbitration. It is therefore necessary to consider alternatives to art 8(1) which are principally, comparatively and practically sound.</p>

Away from the Numbers: Opinion in the Court of Appeal

2011 ◽  
Vol 75 (6) ◽  
pp. 503-527
Author(s):  
Adam Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Case Management ◽  
Bayesian Approach ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The Court of Appeal has recently addressed opinion evidence in numerous cases. Recurring themes have been addressed consistently with the exception of R v T (2010). It is suggested that the rationale in T is not as persuasive as that adopted in other cases. This article advocates that, where appropriate, a Bayesian approach should be adopted. In favouring a Bayesian approach it is suggested that ambiguous phrases such as ‘scientific method’ may not serve courts effectively and judges have been correct, in the majority of cases, to approach opinion evidence in a pragmatic, case-specific fashion. The Court of Appeal warrants credit for emphasising the importance of pre-trial hearings and robust case management.

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v ASUSTEK COMPUTER INCORPORATION

2020 ◽  
Vol 137 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-63
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
General Knowledge ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Skilled Person

Abstract H1 Patents – European patents – Standards essential patents – Technical trials – Obviousness – The skilled person – Common general knowledge – Mindset – “Lions in the path” – The relevance of commercial considerations – Hindsight – Secondary evidence – Essentiality – Construction – Appeal to Court of Appeal

Imaging molecules adsorbed onto electrodes under potential control by scanning probe microscopy

1991 ◽  
Vol 49 ◽  
pp. 376-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
N.J. Tao ◽  
J.A. DeRose ◽  
P.I. Oden ◽  
S.M. Lindsay
Keyword(s):  
Surface Charge ◽  
Environmental Effects ◽  
Scanning Probe Microscopy ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Electrochemical Methods ◽  
Surface Structures ◽  
Scanning Probe ◽  
Potential Control ◽  
Afm Imaging ◽  
Special Circumstances

Clemmer and Beebe have pointed out that surface structures on graphite substrates can be misinterpreted as biopolymer images in STM experiments. We have been using electrochemical methods to react DNA fragments onto gold electrodes for STM and AFM imaging. The adsorbates produced in this way are only homogeneous in special circumstances. Searching an inhomogeneous substrate for ‘desired’ images limits the value of the data. Here, we report on a reversible method for imaging adsorbates. The molecules can be lifted onto and off the substrate during imaging. This leaves no doubt about the validity or statistical significance of the images. Furthermore, environmental effects (such as changes in electrolyte or surface charge) can be investigated easily.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document