Abstract:Where the existence or non-existence of a cause of action has been decided in earlier proceedings, to allow a direct challenge to the outcome, even in changed circumstances and with material not available before, offends the core policy against the re-litigation of identical claims.If the defendant is bound by the court’s declaration that the patent is valid although it has been revoked or amended, he should be equally bound whether the remedy sought is damages or an injunction. The distinction between past and future infringements makes no sense in a case where a single cause of action embraces both and the revocation or amendment is by statute effective ab initio.Absent special factors, principle, fairness and commercial sense support the view that the fact that a patent has been revoked is a point which the alleged infringer should be entitled to rely on in the assessment, it is a new, centrally important, uncontroversial fact, and to deny the alleged infringer the ability to raise it would be to give effect to a monopoly right which the patentee never should have. Far from increasing litigation, permission to rely on the amendment of the patent would serve to put an end to the assessment.It is wrong to prevent a person who has been held to infringe a patent from invoking in proceedings thereafter a subsequent revocation or amendment of the patent, in order to avoid liability for infringement.A decision on infringement is in personam, so it only binds the parties to the action (and their privies), whereas a decision that a patent is invalid (or must be amended) is in rem, so it binds the world, just as the patent, so long it is in force, can be enforced against the world.The policy of the Patents Act is that valid patents are enforceable against the world, even if an infringer is honestly and reasonably unaware of the existence of the patent. Equally, if a patent is revoked (or amended), the policy is that the revocation (or amendment) takes effect retrospectively, and that this can be relied on by the world. As such, it cannot be that someone who has failed in an attack on the patent is not entitled, like anyone else, to rely on the points that the patent has been revoked (or amended), and that the revocation (or amendment) is retrospective in its effect, whether in legal proceedings or in another context.This case has important implications for the question whether English proceedings should be stayed pending a decision in concurrent opposition proceedings in the EPO. As it is difficult to defend the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Glaxo Group Ltd v. Genentech Inc [2008] Bus LR 888 to the effect that the English court should normally refuse a stay of its own proceedings if it would be likely to resolve the question of validity significantly earlier, the appropriate tribunal to review the guidelines should be the Patents Court and the Court of Appeal.

Judge throws out AbbVie's case against NHS England's hepatitis C programme.

NHS England Finalises Procurement to Eliminate Hepatitis C

NHS Can Fund HIV Prevention Drug, Court Rules.

Hepatitis C: NHS Seeks to Identify 55 000 Patients for Treatment

NHS England Blames Possible Legal Action for Decision Not to Fund HIV Prevention Pill

Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) treatment eligibility in the UK: retrospective longitudinal cohort data to explore the impact of changes in clinical guidelines

Ledipasvir-Sofosbuvir for Treating Chronic Hepatitis C: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal—An Evidence Review Group Perspective

Impact of National Volume-Based Procurement on the Procurement Volumes and Spending for Antiviral Medications of Hepatitis B Virus

Direct-Acting Antivirals Remain Cost-Effective Treatments for Chronic Hepatitis C in Australia Despite Changes to the Treated Population and the Availability of Retreatment: The Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir (Maviret®) Example

Cost-effectiveness analysis of an outreach model of Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) assessment to facilitate HCV treatment in primary care

The Hepatitis C Awareness Through to Treatment (HepCATT) study: improving the cascade of care for hepatitis C virus‐infected people who inject drugs in England

NICE is Too Generous in Approving Drugs, Analysis Says.

Pfizer Could Owe NHS £500m for Extending Pregabalin Patent for Pain

European Drug Agency Wins Victory over Drug Companies That Wanted to Withhold Data

Pilot postal birth cohort HCV Screening in UK primary care

NHS England Confirms It Will Not Fund HIV Prevention Pill.

From non-A, non-B hepatitis to hepatitis C virus cure

Nice Sets Cap On Drugs Costing More Than 20m Pound

“Virgin Atlantic Airways v. Zodiac Seats”

Economic Evaluation of Hepatitis C Treatment Extension to Acute Infection and Early-Stage Fibrosis among Patients Who Inject Drugs in Developing Countries: A Case of China