ZipTracker: A&O, Clifford Chance and more!

A brief summary of some of the top court cases and deals law firms acted on to help you stand out in applications.

Ludo Lugnani
Ludo Lugnani

Hi this is ZipLaw! This is our ZipTracker Newsletter where we run through the top court cases and deals law firms acted on so you can use them to stand out in applications. All of them (and more) are added to our ZipTracker database each week.

Here’s what we’re serving today:

  • Court cases involving: Hogan Lovells, A&O Shearman, Bristows, Shearman & Sterling and Taylor Wessing
  • Deals involving: Clifford Chance, Latham & Watkins, Paul Weiss and White & Case

The following deadlines are coming up! Use ZipTracker to stand out in your applications (we have deals & court cases for all of them) 🙌

  • 📅 BCLP TC - 31 May
  • 📅 TLT TC - 31 May
  • 📅 Birketts TC - 4 June
  • 📅 Dentons TC - 17 June

Thin Blood Battle

In Short: Bayer is trying to convince the Court of Appeal that its patent for the blood thinner Xarelto, which the High Court recently nixed, is indeed unique and deserving of protection.

Popular blood thinner Xarelto linked to higher risk of bleeding  complications -

The Facts: Bayer is appealing to keep their patent on Xarelto, a blood thinner that’s making waves in the medical world saying its once-daily dose is an inventive step that wasn’t obvious before. The High Court previously said, "Nah, we don’t think so," because apparently, Bayer had already spilled the beans at a conference.

What Was Each Party Arguing:

  • Bayer’s Argument: Bayer insists that the breakthrough here is in the once-daily dose of Xarelto. They argue it’s a legit innovative step because it’s just as effective and safe as taking it twice a day. And importantly, the existing knowledge didn’t give any hints about this.
  • Generic-Drug Makers' Case: The generic manufacturers, including Teva and Sandoz, are like, “Hold on, this was obvious.” They’re pointing to some conference materials Bayer shared way back when, saying this info made it clear that a daily dose was possible, so Bayer’s patent shouldn’t stand.

Impact and Key Points for Discussion:

  1. What’s an 'Inventive Step' Anyway?: The heart of this whole mess is the idea of an "inventive step" – something new and non-obvious that can be patented. Bayer says their once-daily dosing qualifies. This case really shows how pharma companies need to prove that their discoveries aren’t just routine tweaks but genuine innovations.
  2. The Dangers of Oversharing: The High Court initially said Bayer’s patent was a no-go because they had already shared too much info at a conference. This is a great reminder: sometimes, sharing is not caring, especially if you want to keep your patent safe. Pharma companies need to be super careful about what they disclose publicly.
  3. Generic Drugs – To Be or Not To Be?: The outcome here will be huge for generic versions of Xarelto. If Bayer wins, it’ll delay cheaper generics, keeping prices high and Bayer happy. If the generics win, we get more affordable options on the market, which is great for us but not so great for Bayer’s profits.

Which Law Firms are advising on this?

This post is for paying subscribers only


Already have an account? Log in