In Case C-307/10 IP Translator, the UK Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) is challenging how the European Trade Mark Office (OHIM) construes trade mark specifications. In the EU, approximately half the Member States construe such statements as "means what they say", while the remainder construe them in accordance with OHIM's Presidential Communication 4/03 on the basis that "class headings covers all". This difference in approach leads to uncertainty across the EU.
In the case of Secretary of State for Health v Servier, the Secretary of State is attempting to recover £00s of millions in fees that were paid for a patented prescription drug supplied by Servier. The core allegation is that Servier sought a European Patent for a product that it knew was not novel and / or inventive, and so was not entitled to patent protection: is that actionable? In addition, there are anti-competitive issues arising about "pay-for-delay" deals with generic companies, and the duty of disclosure upon a party in a dominant position.