Articles 
PLAUSIBILITY AND POLICY
THE RT. HON. PROFESSOR SIR ROBIN JACOB
Faculty of Laws, University College, London
In this key article Professor Sir Robin Jacob examines the concept of plausibility as it emerges from two quite different statutory provisions, neither of which uses the word. The policies behind the plausibility rule are discussed, leading to questions as to how much detail a patent must contain in making an idea plausible and the relevance of the susceptibility of industrial application.

Note: EPO Board of Appeal T116/18 references this article at para 13.7.4  

COMPENSATING WRONGLY RESTRAINED DEFENDANTS IN PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT CASES: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EU, ENGLAND AND AUSTRALIA
RAFAELLA FELTHUN
Solicitor, Corrs Chambers Westgarth, Sydney
DAVID FIXLER
Solicitor, Corrs Chambers Westgarth, Melbourne
CATHERINE COTTER
Solicitor, Slaughter and May, London
DUNCAN BLAIKIE
Solicitor, Slaughter and May, London

In the Bayer Pharma decision (C–688/17) of 2019, the CJEU took the view that under Article 9(7) of Directive 2004/48, compensation for wrongly restrained defendants would only be available in a narrow set of circumstances. This is at odds with the position in a number of jurisdictions and could increase disparity in the appetite for seeking to launch at risk in different markets. In this article, the authors consider the CJEU’s decision, its implications, and how it aligns with the legal position and recent trends in England and Australia.

INTERIMS AND AD-INTERIMS: UPDATES ON INTERIM INJUNCTIONS IN PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT MATTERS IN INDIA
ADARSH RAMANUJAN
Law Chambers of Adarsh Ramanujan

The time taken by Indian courts to hear applications for interim injunctions has resulted in a trend towards  ad-interimorders. This article discusses the law and practice concerning interim injunctions in pharmaceutical patent matters in India and the effect of ad-interimorders, concluding that a scheduled and time-bound hearing on interim injunctions should be the proper approach to balancing legal requirements with on-the-ground realities.

CASE COMMENTS
THE EPO MAINTAINS ITS LONG-STANDING PRIORITY ENTITLEMENT APPROACH IN CASE T 844/18
STACEY J FARMER, GABOR MESTER  AND MARTIN GRUND
Grund IP Group

This landmark decision of the EPO deals in depth with the formal requirements governing the valid claiming of priority under the European Patent Convention, taking into account counterpart international treaties. This comment discusses the three questions put to the Enlarged Board of Appeal and concludes with a warning that, with further cases pending that pertain to EPO priority claiming procedure, the findings embedded in T 844/18 might not be the end of the story.

THE ‘PEMETREXED SAGA’ IN EUROPE SO FAR: RECORD AMOUNT OF DAMAGES AND LANDMARK DECISIONS ON THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS
ISABELLE LABARRE AND INA SCHREIBER
Plasseraud IP

Is a salt equivalent to another salt? This question was raised in many countries in patent disputes involving Eli Lilly, the proprietor of the patent EP 1 313 508 which claims the use of pemetrexed disodium in the manufacture of a medicament. The most recent decision in France relating to the ‘pemetrexed saga’ is commented on by the authors, with a brief overview of the landmark decisions already handed down.