Photo of Morag Peberdy

Morag Peberdy has broad experience in all areas of intellectual property, where she advises on both contentious and non-contentious issues. Her wide-ranging expertise includes patents, trademarks, designs, copyright, database rights and confidential information, and covers drafting intellectual property agreements and infringement and contractual disputes. Her particular focuses have been on patent work in the life science sector, and in advising branded goods companies.

The consultation period for the draft proposed Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patents Court (“Rules”) closes on 1 October 2013.  Any life science business with European operations will, sooner or later, find itself before the Unified Patents Court once it becomes operational, either as a claimant or defendant.  The consequences of that litigation will be significant because the decision will affect the whole of Europe, rather than being confined to a single country as under the current litigation model.  The impact of the Rules will therefore be far-reaching, particularly for the life sciences industry, relying as it does on a relatively small number of patents to protect its key products. Now is your last chance to influence the system!

As explained here, in December 2012 the European Parliament voted in favour of the Unitary EU Patent.  The European Commission anticipated that the first Unitary EU Patent would be granted in 2014, although this time line now appears to be delayed.
Continue Reading Time Is Running Out for Commenting on the Unified Patent Court Rules

By Morag Peberdy and Christina Helden

Life sciences companies are already contemplating changing their patent strategies in anticipation of the EU’s Unitary Patent.  However, the timeline for the EU Unitary Patent has been delayed.  When the legislative package was agreed last December, many speculated that the 1 January 2014 date for the implementation of the EU’s Unitary Patent was overly ambitious.  The publication of the UK’s new Intellectual Property Bill (the “Bill”) on 10 May 2013 now gives real substance to this viewpoint.  The provisions of the Bill indicate that the UK will not ratify the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (the “Agreement”), one of the key legislative instruments required for the Unitary Patent’s implementation, until April or May 2015.  Since the UK must ratify the Agreement before it can be implemented anywhere in Europe, it appears that the timetable has been derailed. 

The Unitary Patent will create a single patent with unitary effect, litigated in a Unified European Patent Court.  Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 and Council regulation (EU) No 1260/2012 provide for the single patent with unitary effect.  The former also establishes the 1 January timeline for its implementation.  The Agreement creates the court system which will govern the new system.  However, the Unitary Patent cannot come into effect until 4 months after 13 EU member states have ratified the Agreement, which must include the UK, France and Germany. 

Continue Reading EU Unitary Patent is Likely to be Significantly Delayed

This post originally appeared on our sister blog, InsideTechMedia.  

After more than 40 years of discussions, the European Parliament today voted in favour of the “EU patent package,” hot on the heels of the European Council’s approval yesterday.  The EU patent package will create a Unitary EU Patent i.e. a uniform patent which will have equal effect and will be granted, transferred and enforced in a unitary way in most of Europe.  Unitary EU Patents will be granted through the existing European Patent Office, but a new court system will be set up to enforce these patents.

The Unitary EU Patent will, in time, replace the current system of European Patents which – after grant – operate as independent national patents in up to 38 countries.
Continue Reading A Unitary Patent for Europe is Finally Approved

Article originally published in the Briefing paper for the BioIndustry Association on October 9, 2012

This note provides an introduction to trade marks and designs, from a European perspective. It aims to explain the relevance of trade marks and designs to bioscience companies. It has been prepared by Morag Peberdy of Covington & Burling

Article originally published in PLC Life Sciences Handbook 2012

M&A in the life sciences sector has remained robust, driven by factors such as:

  • „„ The need to replenish shrinking product pipelines.
  • „„ The need to maintain revenues as patents on top-selling
  • products expire.
  • „„ The strategic diversification of business lines.
  • „„ Expansion into emerging markets.

Article originally published in PLC Life Sciences Handbook 2009/2010

Many life science companies rely on their employees’ inventiveness to fuel their research and development (R&D) efforts and generate patents. The most successful inventions can generate billions of euros of sales annually. In some circumstances, the employees who created the patentable inventions may be entitled to