The document discusses the use of "Arrow declarations" in patent cases, lessons from the Fujifilm v AbbVie case, and the English Patents Court's jurisdiction over declaratory relief. It provides an overview of statutory declarations of non-infringement and invalidity, as well as the court's inherent jurisdiction over issues like FRAND licensing and obviousness. Key cases mentioned include Fujifilm v AbbVie, Messier Dowty v Sabena, and Nokia Corp v InterDigital. Contact information is provided to discuss the topics further.

1. Have your say @brownejacobson
'Arrow' declarations
lessons from Fujifilm v AbbVie

2. Have your say @brownejacobson
'Arrow' declarations
lessons from Fujifilm v AbbVie
Connect with Mark
Mark.daniels@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)121 237 3993

3. Have your say @brownejacobson
Thank you for
joining today
Follow us on LinkedIn for
news, legal updates, real
opinions and training:
https://www.linkedin.com/c
ompany/technology---cyber-
security

4. Have your say @brownejacobson
'Arrow' declarations
lessons from Fujifilm v AbbVie
Connect with Mark
Mark.daniels@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)121 237 3993

5. Have your say @brownejacobson
The English Patents Court – a forum for
declaratory relief
• an innovative forum
• Civil Procedure Rules – CPR
40.20
• Messier Dowty v Sabena
• Nokia Corp v InterDigital
• Arrow Generics v Merck & Co
Ltd
• FSA v Rourke
– justice to the Claimant
– justice to the Defendant
– useful purpose
– special reasons

6. Have your say @brownejacobson
Statutory declarations
• non-infringement – section
71 Patents Act 1977
• invalidity (+ revocation) -
section 74(2) Patents Act
1977

7. Have your say @brownejacobson
Court’s inherent
jurisdiction under CPR
40.20
• non-essentiality (and
essentiality) to a technical
standard (Nokia v
InterDigital)
• whether licences offered in
respect of SEPs are FRAND
(Unwired Planet v Huawei)

8. Have your say @brownejacobson
Court’s inherent
jurisdiction under CPR
40.20
• that the Defendant’s
product was obvious at the
priority date of a patent
application (not yet
granted) (Arrow and now
here for real in FKB)

9. Have your say @brownejacobson
Fujifilm v AbbVie
• the background
• why it mattered - the
market and the patents
• the proceedings
• strike out and AbbVie’s
offer

10. Have your say @brownejacobson
The FSA v Rourke
considerations
applied
• useful purpose
• justice to the Claimants and
the Defendants
• any special reasons to grant
or not grant

11. Have your say @brownejacobson
Further
considerations
• the opening of floodgates?
• expert guidance
• the court’s approach to
dosage regimens

12. Have your say @brownejacobson
Connect with Mark
Mark.daniels@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)121 237 3993
Keep your questions coming
or get in touch if you have a specific query

13. Have your say @brownejacobson
Thank you for
joining today
Follow us on LinkedIn for
news, legal updates, real
opinions and training:
https://www.linkedin.com/c
ompany/technology---cyber-
security

14. Have your say @brownejacobson
The cases mentioned today
• Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Company Ltd, Samsung Bioepsis UK Ltd
and Biogen Idec Ltd (together “FKB”) v AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd
[2017] EWHC 395 (Pat)
• Messier Dowty v Sabena [2001] 1 All ER (Lord Woolf MR)
• Financial Services Authority v Rourke [2002] CP Rep 14 (Neuberger J)
• Nokia Corp v InterDigital Technology Corp [2007] EWHC 3077 (Pat)
(Pumfrey J)
• Arrow Generics v Merck & Co Ltd [2007] EWHC 1900 (Pat) (Kitchin J)
• Unwired Planet v Huawei [2015] EWHC 1029 (Pat)

15. Have your say @brownejacobson
Connect with Mark
Mark.daniels@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)121 237 3993
Keep your questions coming
or get in touch if you have a specific query