UK: Lifesciences Snapshot: Winter 2007/08


L'Oreal SA and Others -v- Bellure NV [2007] EWCA Civ 936

The Court of Appeal considered the use of a competitor's trade marks on comparative price lists and the use of similar marks in packaging in relation to whether such use would interfere with the essential function where the marks were used to designate the characteristics (in this case smell) of the competitor's goods. In commenting on the issues, Jacob LJ gave a clear indication that he considers European trade mark law should resist becoming overprotective as "neither the image nor the essential function of the trade marks for the originals is adversely affected by the lists". The Court of Appeal also took the opportunity to roundly reject any notion of extending the law of passing off to include broader concepts of unfair competition.

For our full Law-Now on this case, click here.

Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc And Another v Yeda Research And Development Co Ltd [2007] UKHL 43

In this decision the House of Lords overturned the broad principle in Markem Corporation v Zipher Ltd (2005) that any claim of entitlement to a patent (including by someone claiming to be the true inventor) must be based upon 'some rule of law', for instance, breach of contract or confidentiality. The only determination for the Court to make is to decide who was the inventor of the claimed invention. The decision also clarified the procedure relating to amending an entitlement claim, especially with regards to how the limitation period applies to an application for amendment.

For our full Law-Now on this case, click here.

In The Matter Of An Appeal By DLP Limited In Relation To The Decision Of A Hearing Officer Of The UK Intellectual Property Office Dated 26 April 2007 Pursuant To Section 74B Of The Patents Act 1977 [2007] EWHC 2669 (Pat)

On 16 November 2007, Mr Justice Kitchin ruled on the first appeal to reach the Patents Court under the scheme for the provision of opinions by the Comptroller of Patents, finding that the Patents Court could hear appeals of this type.

In 2006, DLP Limited ("DLP") sought an opinion from the Comptroller as to whether Scrabo Bathing Care ("Scarbo") had infringed one of its UK patents relating to lower level shower trays readily accessible by infirm or disabled people seated in a wheelchair. The examiner issued an opinion that Scrabo's shower trays did not infringe DLP's patent. DLP requested a review of the opinion under section 74B of the Patents Act 1977 and the rules made under that section, which was issued by the Hearing Officer acting for the Comptroller, who ordered certain parts of the original opinion be set aside but did not find fault with the examiner's overall conclusion. DLP brought an appeal against this decision under section 97 of the Act and rule 77K of the Patent Rules 1995, SI 1995/2093.

In his judgment, Kitchin J ruled that the Act and the Rules intended that the review by the Hearing Officer is a decision against which there is a right of appeal and that this type of appeal is not one which the court should decline to exercise jurisdiction, despite it being an inherent feature of the procedure that it can only result in the production of non-binding opinions or decisions.

For our full Law-Now on this case, click here.


Proposed New Regulatory Authority For Tissue and Embryos ("RATE") Dropped

The Government have accepted the recommendation to reconsider its proposal to establish RATE. In the Government's response to the Report from the Joint Committee on the Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill, plans for the proposed new regulatory authority RATE have been dropped. Originally it was planned that RATE would be established to replace the existing regulators the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (the "HFEA") and the Human Tissue Authority (the "HTA").

The Joint Committee's report considered that the regulatory oversight currently being provided by the HFEA and the HTA would be better than that which could be provided by RATE. However, the report did recommend that the Government, the HFEA and the HTA, look at ways to achieve improvements in savings, consistency, efficiency and co-operation between the HFEA and the HTA.

In November the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill was published and the Bill is currently being debated in Parliament. The Bill is not expected to enter into force until sometime in 2009.

MHRA Phase 1 Clinical Trials Accreditation Scheme

The MHRA's Phase 1 Clinical Trial Accreditation Scheme (the "Scheme") was launched in November and will initially only be applicable to those units who conduct non-therapeutic Phase 1 trials, though the Scheme will be reviewed at a later date. The Scheme will provide the MHRA and Ethics Committees with a greater depth of information regarding those units conducting trials and thereby aid their consideration of approval applications.

The Scheme is as a result of the report of the Expert Scientific Group on Phase 1 Clinical Trials ("the ESG"), which was set up following the first-in-human clinical trial of TGN1412 in March 2006 in which all six volunteers experienced adverse reactions after receiving TGN1412. One of the recommendations made by the ESG in their report was that a national professional accreditation system for those conducting first-in-human trials should be encouraged.

The Scheme is very much based around participant safety and public confidence in the way in which trials are carried out and places a great deal of emphasis on giving greater assurances that accredited units have in place the necessary facilities, personnel and procedures so as to be able to respond to medical emergencies that may arise.

The Scheme sets out two types of accreditation: Standard Accreditation, which equates to current GCP inspections and Supplementary Accreditation, which is much wider and detailed. Units who want accreditation and who are carrying out trials with risk factors that require review by the Clinical Trials Expert Advisory Group of the Commission of Human Medicine (the "CTEAG") will need to apply for Supplementary Accreditation. Once achieved, accreditation is valid for two years, with a re-inspection performed on those units who wish to renew their accreditation.

The Scheme is voluntary, as a mandatory scheme would have exceeded the MHRA's powers under the Clinical Trials Directive. Units who are not accredited will not be prevented from conducting trials, however the National Research Ethics Service have said that they will take a lack of accreditation into account when considering a trial site and an absence of accreditation may lead to them conducting their own site inspection. Furthermore, in practice the Scheme may become something akin to mandatory as Sponsors may choose not to place studies with those units that are not accredited. That said, the MHRA have pointed out that clinical trials remain the responsibility of the Sponsor and Investigator and participation of the unit in the Scheme does not exempt them from their responsibilities.

In addition, units may find that Sponsors seek to include provisions in clinical trial agreements whereby they require units to warrant that they are accredited and that they maintain their accreditation.


O'Byrne -v- Aventis Pasteur SA [2007] EWCA Civ 939

The Court of Appeal have confirmed that section 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 is capable of applying where the 10 year final cut-off period, for claimants to enforce their rights under the Product Liability Directive 85/374/EC, has expired.

Mr O'Byrne suffered severe brain damage when he was vaccinated with two doses of anti-haemophilius vaccine in 1992. On 1 November 2000, he brought an action under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 against Aventis Pasteur MSD ("APMSD"), believing that APMSD was the manufacturer of the vaccine and that the brain damage was as a result of the vaccine. In November 2001, APMSD served a defence stating that it was the distributor of the vaccine and in April 2002 it informed the claimant that the manufacturer was Aventis Pasteur SA ("APSA").

In March 2003 the claimant applied to substitute APSA for APMSD, this application being made after the 10-year limitation period specified in Article 11 of the Product Liability Directive 85/374/EC had expired. The judge at first instance ordered the substitution under section 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 and APSA appealed.

The Court of Appeal's decision in this case confirms an earlier Court of Appeal decision in 2001 that a substituted defendant's ability to defend a product liability action commenced before the English Courts on grounds of limitation can be ineffective because of the Court's power retrospectively to substitute one defendant for another defendant, mistakenly named originally by the claimant.

The effect of this decision is the erosion of the legal certainty intended to be provided by the 10-year cut-off period under the Directive.

For our full Law-Now on this case, click here.


MHRA Publish First Anti-Counterfeiting Strategy

In November the MHRA published their first anti-counterfeiting strategy setting out their approach to counterfeit medicines and medical devices in the UK during the next three years. The MHRA's strategy is broken down into three core areas: Communication, Collaboration and Regulation. On the communication front, the Agency have launched a 24 hour anti-counterfeiting hotline and are actively encouraging both the public and healthcare professionals to report any suspicions regarding counterfeits and/or counterfeiters. From a regulatory stance the Agency will undertake an examination of all aspects of the supply chain, and in particular the ways in which medicines are purchased and distributed and existing licence agreements. Through this review it is likely that recommendations will be made to Government regarding changes to the current legislative framework and potentially this review could also lead to the number of wholesale licences issued by the MHRA being reduced and tougher controls being placed on imports and exports.

In addition, the Agency appear to be placing greater emphasis on a move towards actively pursing counterfeiters under the Trade Marks Act 1994, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and potentially the Fraud Act 2006, the reason being that under these acts longer prison sentences can be imposed than those that are possible under the Medicines Act 1968.


OFT Recommendations On UK Medicines Distribution

On 11 December 2007 the Office of Fair Trading ("OFT") published its recommendations to Government on medicines distribution in the UK. Within these recommendations the OFT did not raise objections to "direct to pharmacy" schemes, whereby pharmaceutical manufacturers pay wholesalers a fee for delivering their medicines direct to pharmacies, but did recognise that the scheme had both advantages and potential drawbacks.

The OFT did recommend that the Department of Health makes further changes to the current renegotiation of the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme to ensure that the NHS medicines costs do not increase as a result of changes on distribution. The changes recommended by the OFT centered on the clawback mechanism whereby a proportion of a pharmacist's profit margin is recouped by Government, with the OFT recommending two options. Option one, which is preferred by the OFT, involves decreasing list prices by the amount equivalent to current pharmacy discounts and option two involves agreeing a minimum discount to pharmacies off list prices.

Government has 90 days in which to respond to the OFT's recommendations.

For our full Law-Now on the recommendations made by the OFT, click here.


Risks In Accidentally Disclosing Privileged Documents

The case of MMI Research Ltd v Cellxion Ltd and others [2007] All ER (D) 142 (Sep) highlighted the risks of inadvertently disclosing privileged documents to the other side.

The claimant brought proceedings against the fifth defendant in the German patents court and before this action was settled, the claimant brought proceedings in the UK, alleging patent infringement. The standard disclosure list included an English document (together with a German document, understood to be a translation of it), which was believed to have been filed by the claimant in the German proceedings. Accordingly, copies of both documents were disclosed to the defendants. At a later date the claimant's solicitor discovered that the English document was a draft pleading that had never been filed at the German patent court. The claimant sought an order preventing further use of the document on the grounds that the document was privileged and disclosed by mistake, or in the alternative that this would have been obvious to the reasonable solicitor.

Even though both parties agreed that the document was privileged and was disclosed by mistake, the court was unsympathetic and held that privilege had been waived since the mistake was not obvious to the receiving party.

For our full Law-Now on this case, click here.


Disclosure Of Medical Records

The Information Tribunal has ruled that a deceased woman's medical records should not be disclosed. The case concerned Karen Davies who died at Epsom General Hospital in 1988. In 2003 it emerged that the hospital's treatment had not been satisfactory, that it had admitted liability for her death and that it had reached a settlement with her widower, on behalf of himself and their two children. Pauline Buck, Karen Davies's mother, sought access to her daughter's medical records to establish what had happened. The hospital refused to release them without the permission of her next of kin, Karen's husband Richard Davies, who refused permission.

Pauline Buck took her case to the Information Commissioner, who said that the information should not be released; she then appealed to the Information Tribunal who supported the Commissioner's decision. This decision confirms that an NHS Trust is right to refuse to disclose records in response to a request made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on the basis of the exemption from disclosure in section 41 of the Act.

For our full Law-Now on this case, click here.

New Guidance On How MHRA And VMD Will Deal With Requests For Information Under FOIA

In November last year the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and other parties published guidance on how they will deal with requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

This guidance replaced a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that had been in place since late 2004, which used a 'traffic light' system to differentiate between types of information. In the 2004 MOU each information type was coded green, amber or red in accordance with the ease of their disclosure. A good number of the amber classifications left considerable room for disagreement, particularly over the amount of sensitive material to be redacted before disclosure.

The new guidance, like the MOU, categorises information into three tables according to when it may be published:

  1. documents that public bodies will routinely publish online/in print;
  2. documents/information that public bodies will disclose on request; and
  3. documents/information that public bodies may be able to disclose on request if disclosure is in the public interest.

It is intended to be helpful for regulators, information requestors and industry. Whilst it does not intend to be a legally binding document, it provides guidance and a statement of good practice for the MHRA when dealing with an individual request under the FOIA.

The new guidance is intended to reflect the greater spirit of openness and commitment to disclosure that the Access to Information legislation was designed to foster in public bodies but in practice it has not affected what the regulatory bodies disclose as they treat each request on its own merits in accordance with the legislation and accompanying legislative guidance.


Companies Act 2006: Provisions In Force On 1 October 2007

Monday 1 October 2007 was one of the key implementation dates for the new Companies Act. Among other things important changes relating to directors' duties, derivative actions and the rules on meetings and shareholder resolutions came into force.

For more information on those provisions that came into force on the 1 October 2007, click here.

New Derivative Action May Lead To Increased Claims Against Directors

The new derivative actions provisions under the Companies Act 2006 are now in force. A derivative action is a claim against a director brought by a shareholder on behalf of the company, when a wrong has been committed against the company that the company is not pursing.

The new derivative action provisions are much wider than those previously in place, allowing shareholders to bring claims for:

  • any actual or proposed
  • act or omission
  • involving negligence, breach of duty or breach of trust

by a director, including breach of those duties codified for the first time in the new Act. The director does not have to have benefited personally from the conduct of which the shareholder complains.

For our full Law-Now on this topic, click here.

Pharmaceuticals Year In Review

In early January we held a year in review seminar in which we looked back over the ten most topical issues that faced the pharmaceutical industry in 2007 and what they could mean for 2008.

For a copy of the pack that accompanied the seminar, click here.

For a copy of our year in review article, click here.

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 29/01/2008.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.