How many times has [2017] EWHC 395 (Pat) been cited?

[2017] EWHC 395 (Pat) is cited by 2 judgment(s) in this dataset.

[2017] EWHC 395 (Pat)

· cited by 2 · influence score 14/100

Is it still good law? No negative treatment found in this dataset — it has been cited without being doubted or overruled here.

How to cite

Neutral citation format (OSCOLA). Always confirm against the official judgment.

Cited · 2

Cited — Teva UK Limited & Anor v Novartis AG 2022-12-08
“…When the Fujifilm v AbbVie case reached trial, Henry Carr J decided to exercise his discretion to grant an Arrow declaration: [2017] EWHC 395 (Pat), [2018] RPC 1. By contrast, Birss J refused to grant an Arrow declaration in Pfizer Ltd v F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG [2019] EWHC 1520 (Pat), [2019] RPC 14. I shal…”
Cited — Glaxo Group Ltd & Ors v Vectura Ltd 2018-06-28
“…msung Bioepis: see Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Company Limited v AbbVie Biotechnology Limited and Samsung Bioepis and another v AbbVie Biotechnology Limited [2017] EWHC 395 (Pat). Henry Carr J held that a particular dosage regimen for the claimants’ products was obvious and granted Arrow declarations. AbbVie appealed to this court solel…”