Arrow declaration explained

In UK patent litigation, an Arrow declaration is a declaration or order sought, for reasons of legal certainty, from a court that a product (or process) to be launched was old (i.e., not novel) or obvious in patent law terms at a particular date, so that the product (or process) cannot be affected by (i.e., cannot infringe) any later granted patent, which would itself necessarily also either lack novelty or inventive step.^{[1] [2] [3] [4]} The order is named after Arrow Generics Ltd. v Merck & Co Inc [2007] EWHC 1900 (Pat), in which it was originally suggested that this mechanism would be available as a declaratory relief.^{[1] [3] [5]} Such a declaration was granted for the first time in Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Company Ltd v Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd [2017] EWHC 395 (Pat), Patents Court, England, 3 March 2017.^[5]

The defense is similar to a so-called "Gillette defense", i.e. "the argument in infringement proceedings (...) that the defendant's product implements prior art technology, such that any patent which it infringes must be invalid."^[1]

See also

• Chilling effect
• Formstein defence
• Patent infringement under United Kingdom law

Further reading

• Powles . Julia . United Kingdom Patent Decisions 2016 . International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law . March 2017 . 48 . 2 . 179–183 . 10.1007/s40319-017-0557-2. 159191748 . free .
• "Arrow Declarations": Decision of the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) 12 January 2017 – Case No. [2017] EWCA Civ 1 . International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law . September 2017 . 48 . 6 . 728 . 10.1007/s40319-017-0625-7. 189820848 . free .
• Strath . Janet . Jacob . Reuben . Actavis v Lilly: the madness begins . Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice . 1 March 2018 . 13 . 3 . 169–171 . 10.1093/jiplp/jpx237.
• Trigg . Robyn . United Kingdom Patent Decisions 2019 . International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law . March 2020 . 51 . 3 . 341–361 . 10.1007/s40319-020-00913-2. 214460965 . free .
• Jacob . Robin . Robin Jacob . Injunctions in Patent Cases . Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte . 2020 . 3 . 97–101 . Carl Heymanns Verlag.

Notes and References

1. Brazell . Lorna . Pre-emptive product patentability declarations . Pharmaceutical Patent Analyst . 1 September 2017 . 6 . 5 . 197–200 . 10.4155/ppa-2017-0023 . 28818023 . 2046-8954. free .
2. Adair . Dominic . Arrow declarations: here to stay or a flash in the pan? . Pharmaceutical Patent Analyst . 1 July 2018 . 7 . 4 . 133–136 . 10.4155/ppa-2018-0009 . 29882713 . 46983781 . 2046-8954.
3. England . Paul . Arrow declarations: a creative new remedy, but what are its limits? . Pharmaceutical Patent Analyst . November 2019 . 8 . 6 . 217–219 . 10.4155/ppa-2019-0024. 31718455 . 207963034 .
4. Gilbert . Penny . Kendall-Windless . Carissa . Rowlatt . Benjamin . Will Arrow Relief Take Flight? . Managing Intellectual Property . 2020 . 286 . 45 .
5. Daniels . Mark . Parsons . Giles . Patents Court grants declarations that dosage regimens were obvious . Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice . 1 August 2017 . 12 . 8 . 624–626 . 10.1093/jiplp/jpx112 . 1747-1532.