JIPLP 10th Anniversary Conference: Part IV
Marius then described the simplified procedure for the destruction of goods -- originally optional, where the owner of the goods did not object. Further changes are on the way under the EU legislative package, particularly with regard to transit of goods that are not ostensibly destined to be put on the market in the EU.
Darren then gave a lovely, thoroughly intelligible explanation of what Swiss claims were, how they came into existence, and how they were relevant to the pregabalin patent infringement suit. He addressed the concept of "skinny labelling", where a prescribed patented medicine lists all indications except for that for which a particular use has been patented. Skinny labels have very little meaning in the real world, since the absence of an indication on the label doesn't stop the product so labelled from being prescribed for it ("off-label" use). What usually happens is that the doctor prescribes a generic product; the pharmacist then supplies the cheapest version, which is usually the generic version bearing the skinny label, which is given to the patient for treatment of the patented indication. This didn't make the patent owner very happy.
There are mental elements at play here, involving both what might be intended and what might be foreseen. But surely the doctor doesn't care which version of the right medicine the patient gets, and the pharmacist doesn't know what in particular the doctor intended the patient to be taking the medicine for. A ruling of the Court of Appeal may be needed for the clarification of this.
Jeremy Phillips then closed with his summary, "The Big IP Picture: is there one?" and we all went off for a drink ...