Adam Gamsa

AMI Industries, Inc. v Martin Baker Aircraft Company Ltd [2026] EWHC 1027 (Pat)

AMI’s patent was to an aircraft ejection seat headrest intended to reduce head and neck injuries caused to pilots during ejection. The dynamics of an ejection initially force the pilot’s head down towards their chest, t...

Fujikura v Sterlite [2025] EWHC 3181 (Pat)

Fujikura brought a claim for infringement of European Patent (UK) 3,796,060, which concerns optical fibre cables designed with a ribbed outer sheath. The claimed sheath is said to improve the air-blown installation proc...

Generics (UK) Ltd, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Europe Ltd & Anor v AstraZeneca AB [2025] EWCA Civ 903

AstraZeneca held two supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) protecting dapagliflozin, an inhibitor of sodium-dependent glucose co-transporter proteins, used for treating Type II diabetes. The patent underlying the...

Generics (UK) Ltd, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Europe Ltd & Anor v AstraZeneca AB [2025] EWHC 1012 (Pat)

AstraZeneca held two supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) protecting dapagliflozin, an inhibitor of sodium-dependent glucose co-transporter proteins, used for treating Type II diabetes. The patent underlying the...

MediaTek v Huawei [2025] EWHC 649 (Pat)

Huawei wishes to license its SEPs at the chipset rather than device level. MediaTek brought proceedings against Huawei in the Patents Court, seeking relief including determination of a global FRAND licence. Huawei poi...

Celltrion v Genentech and Novartis [2025] EWHC 174 (Pat)

Celltrion sought revocation of European Patent (UK) No. 3 805 248 B1 (the “Patent”) owned by Genentech and Novartis (“GN”). The Patent concerned a formulation of a monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, rhuMAB E25 (generic name...

BioNTech and Pfizer v CureVac [2024] EWHC 2538 (Pat)

CureVac, a German developer of mRNA vaccines, asserted that BionTech/Pfizer’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine infringed 2014 patents directed to a ‘split poly(A) tail’ i.e. a 3’ sequence of repeated adenosines split by a link...

R2 v Intel [2024] EWHC 1974 (Pat)

R2 is the proprietor of European Patent (UK) No. 3 376 653 (the “Patent”), which concerns over voltage spike protection of a switching converter. R2 alleges that Intel infringe the Patent by marketing chips, processors...

Sandoz and others v Bayer [2024] EWCA Civ 562

Bayer owns European Patent (UK) No. 1 845 961 (the “Patent”), which concerns once daily dosing of rivaroxaban (a blockbuster blood-thinning drug). At first instance, Hacon HHJ had found the Patent obvious over a poster e...

Sandoz v Bayer [2024] EWHC 796 (Pat)

Bayer owns European Patent (UK) No. 1 845 961 (the “Patent”), which concerns once daily dosing of rivaroxaban (a blockbuster blood-thinning drug). The Claimants (generics pharmaceutical companies: Sandoz, Teva, Accord, C...

NOCO v Shenzhen Carku [2023] EWCA Civ 1502

NOCO owned GB 2 257 858 (the “Patent”), concerning battery-powered car jump starters. Carku revoked the Patent on grounds of obviousness. Carku also alleged that statements made by NOCO to Amazon were actionable threats...

Vodafone v IPCom [2023] EWCA Civ 113

Vodafone v IPCom [2023] EWCA Civ 113 IPCom was the registered proprietor of European Patent (UK) No 2 579 666 relating to the allocation of access rights within a telecommunications network. At trial, Mr Recorder Cam...

Anan Kasei and Rhodia v Neo [2023] EWCA Civ 11

Neo had infringed the Claimants’ patent by dealing with high surface area (‘HSA’) ceric oxide products in the UK. Those products are used (in combination with a number of other ingredients) in the manufacture of exhaust...

Shenzhen Carku v NOCO [2022] EWHC 2034 (Pat)

NOCO owns GB 2 257 858 (the “Patent”), which concerns battery-powered car jump starters. Carku sought revocation of the Patent on grounds of obviousness over three prior art citations: Richardson, Krieger and a manual fo...

Sandoz and Teva v BMS and Pfizer [2022] EWHC 1831 (Pat)

Apixaban, trade name ELIQUIS, is a successful drug for treating thromboembolic disorders. This trial concerned four patents relating to formulations of apixaban (the “Patents”), all from the same family having priority d...

Neurim v Mylan [2022] EWCA Civ 699

In these proceedings the Claimants allege infringement by Mylan of European Patent (UK) No. 3 103 443 (“EP443”). EP443 is a second medical use patent which (as unconditionally proposed to be amended) claims the use of a...

Novartis AG v (1) Teva UK, (2) Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (UK), and others [2022] EWHC 959 (Ch)

Novartis is the owner of a patent application covering the use of the pharmaceutical ‘fingolimod’ (which Novartis sells under the brand name ‘Gilenya’) for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. With the end of...

Anan Kasei v Neo [2022] EWHC 708 (Ch)

An inquiry into damages was ordered following the finding of infringement by Neo of Rhodia’s patent for high surface area (“HSA”) cerium oxide, a product used in the manufacture of catalyst systems for vehicle exhausts. ...

Neurim v Mylan [2022] EWHC 109 (Pat)

In these proceedings, Neurim alleges that Mylan infringe European Patent (UK) 3,103,443 (the Divisional). In previous proceedings, started in 2020 (the 2020 Action), Neurim sued Mylan for infringement of European Patent...

In these proceedings, Neurim alleges that Mylan infringe European Patent (UK) 3,103,443 (the Divisional). In previous proceedings, started in 2020 (the 2020 Action), Neurim sued Mylan for infringement of European Patent (UK) 1,441,702 (the Parent of the Divisional). The Patents concern melatonin for use in treating a primary insomnia characterised by non-restorative sleep (NRS). In his judgment in the 2020 Action (the Judgment), Marcus Smith J held that the Parent was valid and Infringed. On 18 December 2020, Neurim withdrew its appeal to the Technical Board of Appeal (TBA of the EPO) from the Opposition Division’s decision that the Parent was invalid. So, the Parent was revoked ab initio. However, Neurim had the Divisional in prosecution, and obtained its grant on 30 June 2021, whereupon it began these proceedings. Neurim applied to amend the claims of the Divisional into a form identical for practical purposes to the claims of the Parent. Neurim alleged that issue estoppel arising from the Judgment prevented Mylan from challenging the validity of the Divisional. Mylan said that Neurim’s conduct in amending the Divisional was an abuse of process, and it said that Neurim’s conduct in seeking to shut out its challenge to the validity of the Divisional was an abuse of a dominant position under s. 18 of the Competition Act 1998.

The preliminary issues were therefore:

i) Whether Mylan was issue estopped from challenging the validity of the Divisional in the light of the 2020 action.
ii) Whether Neurim’s conduct in amending the Divisional was an abuse.

iii) Whether Neurim’s conduct amounts to an abuse of a dominant position (on the assumption of dominance and market definition).

Meade J heard the trial in person between 15-17 December 2021 and 19 January 2022. The Judge agreed with Mylan that there was no issue estoppel and directed that submissions be made to Marcus Smith J in relation to the validity of the Divisional Patent. He held that there was no abuse and the competition issue did not need to be determined, given his decision on issue estoppel.

Piers Acland QC and Adam Gamsa appeared for Mylan, instructed by Taylor Wessing LLP

[2022] EWHC 109 (Pat)

Optis v Apple [2021] EWHC 3121 (Pat)

Trial C concerned the validity of three patents from the same family, originally applied for by LG Electronics Inc and later acquired by Optis: EP (UK) 2 093 953 B1, EP (UK) 2 464 065 B1 and EP (UK) 2 592 779 B1. The Pa...

Mitsubishi and Sisvel v Oneplus et al [2021] EWHC 1639 (Pat)

The dispute concerns a pool of telecoms patents (the ‘MCP Pool’) administered by Sisvel. Sisvel is the registered proprietor of EP 2,254,259 and EP 1,903,689 (the ‘Patents’), which had been declared essential to LTE. The...

Mitsubishi and Sisvel v Oneplus et al [2021] EWHC 1048 (Pat)

The dispute concerns a pool of telecoms patents (the ‘MCP Pool’) administered by Sisvel. Sisvel is the registered proprietor of EP 1,925,142 (the ‘Patent’), which had been declared essential to LTE (TS36.222 v10.0.0). ...

IPCom v Vodafone [2021] EWCA Civ 205

This was an appeal from the order of Mr Recorder Campbell QC following trial, [2020] EWHC 132 (Pat), concerning a mobile telecommunication patent, European Patent (UK) No. 2 579 666 (the “Patent”), owned by IPCom. The J...

The Janger Ltd v Tesco Plc [2020] EWHC 3450 (IPEC)

The Claimant (“Janger”) is the proprietor of GB 2 552 562 B entitled “A hangable garment hook”. The Defendant (“Tesco”) was accused of infringement in respect of hangers known as the Meetick hangers, used for hanging je...

Neurim v Mylan [2020] EWHC 3270 (Pat)

The Claimants (“Neurim”) alleged infringement of EP(UK) 1,441,702 B1 (the “Patent”), which claims 2mg prolonged release pharmaceutical formulations including the active ingredient melatonin to improve the restorative qua...

Neurim v Generics UK Limited (t/a Mylan) [2020] EWCA Civ 793

This was an appeal from the decision of Marcus Smith J in [2020] EWHC 1362 (Pat) to refuse to grant an interim injunction to prevent Mylan launching a generic prolonged-release melatonin product. Neurim Pharmaceutical...

Neurim v Generics UK Limited (t/a Mylan) [2020] EWHC 1362 (Pat)

Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Limited is the registered proprietor of EP(UK) 1,441,702 B1 (the Patent). Flynn Pharma Limited is registered as an exclusive licensee. The Patent claims prolonged release pharmaceutical form...

IPCom v Vodafone [2020] EWHC 132 (Pat)

IPCom alleged infringement of EP(UK) 2, 579, 666 B1, which is entitled “Allocation of access rights for a telecommunications channel to subscriber stations of the telecommunications network”. The Patent is part of the s...

Philips v ASUSTEK, HTC et al [2019] EWCA Civ 2230

This was a set of three appeals from Judgments of Arnold J (as he was) concerning mobile telecommunications patents owned by Philips ([2018] EWHC 1224 (Pat), [2018] EWHC 1732 (Pat) and [2018] EWHC 1826 (Pat)). Philips h...

Technetix BV et al v Teleste Limited [2019] EWHC 3106 (Pat)

Technetix alleged infringement of UK Patent No. EP (UK) No. 1 259 074 B8 entitled ‘Communication system comprising means for preventing intermodulation products’ by Teleste’s supply of telecommunications products to Virg...

Anan Kasei Co. Ltd & Anor v Molycorp Chemicals & Oxides (Europe) Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1646

This was an appeal from the judgment of Mr Wyand QC (sitting as a deputy), in which the judge held that Molycorp had infringed a patent concerning a method for producing ceric oxide (also known as ceria). Ceria is used i...

Technetix BV et al v Teleste Limited [2019] EWHC 126 (IPEC)

Technetix alleged infringement of UK Patent No. 2 382 473 B entitled "Cable Tap Unit" by Teleste's Tap Bank product. The Patent claims a cable tap unit with receptor means, into which a directional coupler can be inserte...

Dynaenergetics v Geodynamics HP-2017-000063

Dyna sought revocation of Geo's Patent for "Improvements in and relating to oil well perforators", EP(UK) 1 671 013 B1. The Patent claimed a shaped charge for downhole applications (i.e. to perforate cased oil wells to...

Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Incorporation & Ors [2018] EWHC 1826 (Pat)

Philips alleged infringement by HTC and ASUS of three Patents, which it had declared essential to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) standards, in...

Philips alleged infringement by HTC and ASUS of three Patents, which it had declared essential to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) standards, in particular the sections that relate to High Speed Packet Access (HSPA/3.5G). This was the second technical trial, concerning the validity and infringement of the 511 Patent.

The 511 Patent (with priority date 3 May 2003) concerns a novel form of fast power control. The conventional approach in CDMA telecoms systems at the priority date (such as UMTS Release 5) was for transmission power to be increased in poor channel conditions and decreased in good channel conditions. This ensures that the received power is approximately equal for all users (irrespective of, for example, the distance of each user’s mobile phone from the base station). The 511 Patent subverts this known, conventional approach, instead reducing data transmission power during bad channel conditions and increasing it should channel quality improve on an intra-data block timescale (i.e. the timescale on which transmission power is conventionally adjusted using transmission power commands to deal with fast fading caused by multipath interference).

The Defendants argued non-infringement on the basis that the construction of the term “data transmit power” ought to include the power of all transmissions, and in particular that of control signals as well as data signals. The Judge rejected that argument and held that the 511 Patent is infringed by the power control of the physical data channels in UMTS Release 6, as specified in Technical Specification (TS) 25.214.

The Defendants also contended that the 511 Patent was obvious over the Physical Layer Standard for cdma2000 Release 0 version 3.0 dated 15 June 2001 (“C.S0002”), the other two cited pieces of prior art having been abandoned by the Defendants shortly before trial. Arnold J held the 511 Patent valid over C.S0002, rejecting the Defendants’ submissions regarding the disclosure of that prior art to the Skilled Person and the steps that it would have been obvious for the Skilled Person to have taken, having read it with interest.

Mark Vanhegan QC and Adam Gamsa were instructed by Bristows for Philips

[2018] EWHC 1826 (Pat)

Koninklijke Philips v Asustek and HTC [2018] EWHC 1732 (Pat)

Philips alleged infringement by HTC and ASUS of three Patents, which it had declared essential to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) standards, in...

Philips alleged infringement by HTC and ASUS of three Patents, which it had declared essential to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) standards, in particular the sections that relate to High Speed Packet Access (HSPA/3.5G). This was the second technical trial, concerning the validity of the 659 Patent.

At the Priority Date (12 November 2003), the high-speed downlink shared channel of HSDPA required a separate, associated downlink dedicated channel, (with associated channel code), to be set up for each user. There are a limited number of channel codes available to the base station for downlink transmission. The invention of the 659 Patent proposes a fractional dedicated channel for HSDPA with a single channel code shared by a number of mobiles. In this way, only a single code is used by the fractional dedicated channel for multiple users rather than a code for each user and code channel resources are saved. Unlike common general knowledge dedicated channels, the fractional dedicated channel of the 659 Patent comprises only power control commands, (i.e. it does not include dedicated pilot bits). Dedicated pilots bits were known to be required for UE-specific beamforming and closed-loop transmit diversity with antenna verification. They were also used as part of power control, synchronisation and demodulation, although not technically required for those purposes.

HTC and ASUS accepted infringement but contended that the ’659 Patent is obvious over a single piece of prior art (having dropped their arguments over two separate prior art documents during the course of trial): a cross-referenced pair of temporary documents submitted by Nortel to 3GPP WG1 meetings #32 and #34 in May and October 2003, respectively. The Nortel TDocs decribe a fractional dedicated channel, but all configurations of that channel include dedicated pilot bits.

Arnold J held the 659 Patent to be invalid over the pleaded prior art. He held that omitting the dedicated pilot bits from the dedicated channel was a technically obvious choice notwithstanding the impact on backwards compatibility.

Mark Vanhegan QC and Adam Gamsa were instructed by Bristows for Philips

[2018] EWHC 1732 (Pat)

The National Guild of Removers & Storers Ltd v Bee Moved Ltd & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1302

NGRS is a trade body which represents and provides services to its members in the removal and storage business. NGRS appealed the first instance decision of Mr Recorder Campbell QC in which he held that, despite adverti...

Koninklijke Philips v Asustek and HTC [2018] EWHC 1224 (Pat)

Philips alleged infringement by HTC and ASUS of three Patents, which it had declared essential to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) standards, in...

Anan Kasei Co. Ltd & Anor v Molycorp Chemicals & Oxides (Europe) Ltd [2018] EWHC 843 (Pat)

This was a claim for infringement of a patent concerned with a method for producing ceric oxide (also known as ceria). Ceria is used in catalytic applications, particularly as a co-catalyst for purifying vehicle exhaust...

Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Incorporation & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1526

This was an appeal from the decision of Arnold J [2016] EWHC 2220 (Pat) in respect of a preliminary issue in a three standard-essential patent infringement action. Philips alleges that ASUS and HTC infringe the patents...

This was an appeal from the decision of Arnold J [2016] EWHC 2220 (Pat) in respect of a preliminary issue in a three standard-essential patent infringement action. Philips alleges that ASUS and HTC infringe the patents by implementing high speed packet access (HSPA) technology in mobile telecommunications networks. The preliminary issue decided by Arnold J was whether a covenant not to assert patents in an agreement between Philips and Qualcomm Inc. provided a defence for HTC.

Arnold J had held that Philips’ covenant not to assert its “CDMA Technically Necessary Patents” against nominated customers of Qualcomm did not extend to HSPA patents on the grounds that: (1) HSPA is not within the scope of the definition of “CDMA Wireless Industry Standards” in the Qualcomm agreement, properly construed according to the governing law, California Law; (2) the proviso to the covenant carved out hybrid CDMA/TDMA technologies, including HSPA, in any event; and (3) the covenant did not extend to HTC’s products that incorporated third-party (i.e. non-Qualcomm) chipsets.

HTC appealed, contending that the judge had misconstrued the Qualcomm agreement by wrongly applying California law, including in respect of the admissible extrinsic evidence under California law. HTC argued inter alia that HSPA, being a subsequent release of the proposed ETSI UMTS standard, was included within the scope of the covenant.

Arden, Kitchin and Floyd LLJ dismissed HTC’s appeal. They held that California law takes a holistic attitude to interpretation of a contract and that the relevant extrinsic evidence includes the strength of the parties’ patent positions with regard to CDMA and TDMA. Philips had a much stronger position in TDMA than Qualcomm and they agreed with the Judge that HSPA is not within the scope of the definition of “CDMA Wireless Industry Standards” in the Qualcomm agreement, including because the absence of a royalty is a powerful indicator in favour of Philips’ construction. They also agreed with the Judge that equipment implementing HSPA is TDMA equipment, so the proviso carved out HSPA from the scope of the covenant. Finally, they dismissed HTC’s appeal in respect of HTC’s products that include third-party chipsets because the result contended for by HTC would be contrary to the interests of both Qualcomm and Philips, as the Judge had held.

Mark Vanhegan QC and Adam Gamsa appeared for Philips.

[2017] EWCA Civ 1526

Adam Gamsa

Recent & Notable Cases