JUVE Comment

Carpmaels & Ransford’s mixed patent litigation practice maintains a strong presence in the life sciences industry. The firm coordinates numerous pan-European disputes for pharmaceutical originators such as Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi, and Takeda. This stems from the firm’s robust patent prosecution work in this sector. Through intensive EPO opposition work by renowned patent attorneys such as Stephen Duffield, Cameron Marshall, Edward Oates, and Daniel Wise, the firm frequently finds itself at the heart of major European life sciences disputes.

UK revocation cases, such as Johnson & Johnson’s action against Samsung Bioepis regarding biological product Stelara, have played a less prominent role recently. The firm’s activity has instead focused more on EPO proceedings and pan-European coordination work. Yet it is not only the patent attorneys’ work that draws market attention. The legal team led by Jennifer Antcliff and Agathe Michel-de Cazotte demonstrates how deeply Carpmaels has embedded itself in the life sciences industry. In this segment, Carpmaels now competes directly with London’s leading practices, including Bristows, Powell Gilbert and Bird & Bird.

Unlike these competitors, however, Carpmaels’ litigation business now shows a clear divide. The firm maintains a limited presence in electronics and mobile communications litigation, having opted not to position itself more prominently in FRAND cases. Despite considerable prosecution work in other technical fields, Carpmaels rarely engages in related litigation. An exception saw the firm advising a manufacturer of electronic household appliances in a pan-European dispute.

European set-up

Carpmaels’ strategy is nevertheless successful, because in its core area of life sciences advice, the firm stands alongside top European patent firms such as Bardehle, Hoffmann Eitle and Vossius & Partner. Its patent attorneys have long been at the forefront of the market, advising well-known clients such as Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Sanofi in EPO oppositions. The mixed team has also built a strong reputation in cross-border life sciences disputes. This expertise has now translated into early success at the UPC.

The UK firm is one of few British outfits to establish itself quickly at the new court. It appeared in some of the UPC’s first life sciences disputes, including the high-profile battle over cholesterol-lowering drug Praluent. Carpmaels had previously advised Sanofi and Regeneron in national and EPO proceedings alongside Hoffmann Eitle. The mixed firm also made an early appearance at the Düsseldorf local division for Curio Bioscience against 10x Genomics. Although a relatively small UPC case for Carpmaels, it was notable that the firm did not instruct local counsel in Düsseldorf. The same approach applied when advising bioMérieux in its dispute with Labrador Diagnostics over diagnostic devices in Düsseldorf and Milan.

The firm’s key role in UPC life sciences cases is further underlined by its representation of regular clients Novartis and Regeneron. A team of patent attorneys, working alongside Freshfields lawyers, is advising the companies at the Düsseldorf local division regarding biosimilars of the asthma drug Xolair. As with national litigation, however, Carpmaels has yet to make significant inroads at the UPC outside the life sciences sector.

Strengths

Pharma disputes for originator drug manufacturers, including a strong practice for EPO proceedings and SPCs. Integrated approach of patent attorneys and lawyers.

Recommended individuals

Jennifer Antcliff, Ian Kirby, Agathe Michel-de Cazotte (“very impressive development through Carpmaels’ strong UPC practice”, competitor); patent attorneys: Harvey Adams (“very good life sciences patent attorney”, competitor; pharma and biotechnology, chemistry), John Brunner (“vey good life sciences specialist”, competitor; pharma and biotechnology, medical technology), Stephen Duffield (pharma and biotechnology), Hugh Goodfellow (pharma and biotechnology), Cameron Marshall (“great pharma litigator”, client; “excellent in EPO oppositions”, competitor; pharma and biotechnology), Emily Nikolic (pharma and biotechnology), Edward Oates (“great for EPO oppositions”, client; “very good advice in SPC cases”, competitor; pharma and biotechnology), Gary Small (digital communication and computer technology, electronics), James Warner (pharma and biotechnology), Daniel Wise (“knowledgeable attorney with a good understanding of strategic considerations in oppositions”, competitor; pharma and biotechnology)

Team

22 lawyers, 95 patent attorneys

Partner moves

Camilla Balleny (unknown destination in 2024)

Clients

Litigation: Johnson & Johnson against Samsung Bioepis in revocation action and EPO oppositions regarding biological product Stelara for autoimmune treatment; Takeda regarding coordination of pan-European litigation against various generic drug companies over ADHD drug Elvanse; Janssen-Cilag against Amgen in revocation action and EPO proceedings regarding blood cancer drug Tecvayli; CSL/uniQure against Pfizer in EPO proceedings over haemophilia gene therapy Hemgenix; Novartis/Genmab at CJEU over SPC for multiple sclerosis antibody Kesimpta; Novartis in EPO opposition regarding heart-failure drug Entresto; Sanofi against Amgen over cholesterol-lowering drug Praluent; Gilead in EPO oppositions against HIV blockbuster Descovy.