Paul Gershlick, a Partner and Head of Pharmaceuticals and Life Sciences at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP, welcomed the decision but raised a warning: “This is fantastic news for people with prostate cancer and their families. It is also seemingly good news for the NHS.

“However, at what price? There is much concern in the industry that as costs of bringing new drugs to market are increasing, the price they can charge is falling as pressures are increased on NHS budgets to obtain more for less. In particular, there is concern over the QIPP Agenda, in which the Department of Health has to find billions of savings to obtain better value, and value based pricing – the new pricing regime about which there is currently not much certainty. If people who invest in research and development in bringing new drugs to market are not sufficiently incentivised to make the profits that ultimately reward their investment and associated risks, we could all suffer in the long-term. It is important that new drugs are valued appropriately to incentivise the new wave of drugs.”

Paul Gershlick, a Partner and Head of Pharmaceuticals and Life Sciences at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP, comments: “These are the dramatic effects being felt in just one drug falling out of patent during the so-called patent cliff.  The patent cliff is the period between 2011 and 2016 when many of big pharma’s blockbuster drugs fall out of patent without sufficient replacements in the pipeline to make up the revenue shortfall. This period is going to re-shape the whole pharmaceutical industry. It is a time of threat to big pharma companies but also a time of opportunity for new business models.”

Meanwhile, AZ’s chief executive, David Brennan, is retiring on 1 June  as the big pharma company battles to maintain revenues after losing out to generics competitors. Brennan said that the pharma sector was “experiencing pressures none of which I’ve witnessed in my 36 years in the industry”. Like many big pharma companies, AZ is feeling the effects of the patent cliff, which is the falling out of patent of many of their blockbuster drugs between 2011 and 2016 without sufficient replacements coming through.

Lipitor is one of the first drugs to come off patent in what is coined the “patent cliff”. The patent cliff refers to the falling out of patent of a large number of blockbuster drugs between 2011 and 2016 without sufficient replacements coming through in the pipeline. 

Paul Gershlick, a Partner and Head of Pharmaceuticals and Life Sciences at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP, comments: “Many experts see the patent cliff as heralding a new era in the pharmaceutical sector as big pharma companies will struggle to cope with the massive loss of revenues that they will suffer. How they and others in the sector adapt to the new position will determine who will survive, who will thrive and who will not make it.”

GSK said that the system for approving new drugs had to change.  It said: “ ”The failure to recognise and adopt innovative new medicines continues to be a systemic problem in the UK … The UK is a world leader in the research, development and manufacture of medicines, but is one of the slowest to enable patients to have access to innovative new treatments. This is a situation that must be addressed.”

In response, NICE has said that it had to recognise how new products added to the existing care already available, and if they cost a lot and did not add much in terms of improvement, that would affect whether they would be promoted. NICE had consulted with patients and doctors and concluded that the cost did not justify the relative improvements made compared to current standard care available.

Stephen Whitehead, the CEO of the ABPI, said: “I firmly believe partnership working is the future of healthcare in the UK. Generic medicines do save us money, but it is innovation that saves lives. We have to be careful not to focus on cost saving when we should be focusing on patients. ”

He highlighted the fact that developing new innovative medicines could save money elsewhere in care, such as with Alzheimer’s. He warned about the understandable concern for the NHS to keep prices down, as any failure to recognise and value innovation would mean lives would suffer. He saw the partnership opportunities as enabling the NHS and industry to work together for the good of improving healthcare.

The Prime Minister has said: “The UK boasts a world-leading life sciences sector which is changing at an incredible pace.  And I’m absolutely committed to helping it widen its significant foothold in the global market”.

More information on how to apply can be found here: http://www.innovateuk.org/content/competition/biomedical-catalyst.ashx.

Paul Gershlick, a Partner and head of Pharmaecuticals and Life Sciences at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP, comments: “The pharma sector is aware of the patent cliff – the falling out of patent of many major blockbuster drugs between 2011 and 2016 without adequate replacements in the pipeline.  These figures confirm that phenomenon. The pipeline has dried up, and other factors remain in place that make the bringing to market of new drugs a difficult task.”

• What should the objective of IP policy be?
• How well is IP policy functioning across Government departments and could this be improved?
• How successful have the attempts to update IP policy been in light of changes brought about by the digital environment?
• How effective is the Intellectual Property Office and what should its priorities be?
• How should the UK government co-ordinate IP policy at an international level and what should be done to promote economic growth?
• Protecting and enforcing IP is in different departments to those that develop IP policy – what impact does this have and how can it be improved?

The Group hopes to hold public question and answer sessions on these issues between Easter and the end of May. Details of the sessions will be on the APPG website at http://www.allpartyipgroup.org.uk/.

Paul Gershlick, a Partner at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP and Head of Pharmaceuticals and Life Sciences, comments: “Big pharma companies are currently struggling to maintain profits in the face of the patent cliff and other challenges they are facing.  Working hand-in-hand with agile innovative start-ups with huge potential may be one way in which they can re-shape their business models in a changing environment.”

GSK’s new plant will be located in Cumbria.  It will not be up and running until 2020 as it will take some time to build.  But it is a massive shot in the arm for the UK’s life sciences industry against a backdrop over concerns for the industry amidst the patent cliff and other challenges facing the industry.  Last year, Pfizer announced the closure of its research and development facility in Kent with a loss of over 1,000 skilled jobs.  AstraZeneca recently announced that it was cutting over 10% of its global staff. 

Eisai announced a few days ago that it will be building new jobs at its Hatfield base with a centre of excellence for its highly skilled European Union workers – the European Knowledge Centre.

Paul Gershlick, Partner and Head of Pharmaceuticals and Life Sciences at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP says, “Hopefully, GSK and Eisai’s recent announcements will set a new trend that will see the UK’s pharma and life sciences sector fight back against its recent challenges and re-invigorate the country’s involvement in this industry.”

The Government has sounded a warning note, though: we could do better. The Prime Minister said the UK could tempt a lot more investment if the country made more of its assets: our talent for discovery and the NHS. This follows on from the Life Sciences Strategy, the initiative launched in December 2011, pursuant to which the NHS and research scientists would make better of use of NHS data, which the Government claims is more comprehensive than any other comparable health system in the world. The Government is consulting on amending the NHS Constitution to create a presumption that data collected within NHS care would be used for research, subject to providing sufficient patient confidentiality and allowing patients to opt-out if they do not agree.

At the time of the Government’s announcement in December, Paul Gershlick, Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP’s Head of Pharmaceuticals and Life Sciences, praised the initiative and criticised privacy groups for not seeing the positives. Read more of Paul’s comments here: http://www.mablaw.com/2011/12/mab-pharma-sector-nhs-data-sharing-plans/. Sir Mark Walport, director of the Wellcome Trust, also agrees, saying that the Government’s consultation is a huge step forward and research charities have been calling for this for many years.

The Raspberry Pi is a credit-card sized, low-cost computer that is designed to help teach children (and adults) to program. The £22 computer is sold uncased and without a keyboard or monitor, and has been created by volunteers drawn mainly from academia and the UK technology industry.

The computer went on sale this week and its launch is timely given that the Department for Education has just announced that it is considering making changes to the way computing is taught in schools, with the aim of placing greater emphasis on skills such as programming.

In his recent speech outlining the aforementioned changes, the Secretary of State for Education praised the Raspberry Pi, saying “Initiatives like the Raspberry Pi scheme will give children the opportunity to learn the fundamentals of programming… This is a great example of the cutting edge of education technology happening right here in the UK.”

As well as the Government, the Raspberry Pi has naturally created a lot of interest amongst the general public and its launch has been covered by the BBC and the national press. The demand to purchase the new computer has been so overwhelming that The Guardian newspaper even reported that as soon as it went on sale it sold out, crashing the websites selling it in the process! Distributors Premier Farnell reported that its website received half a million hits in 15 minutes, and RS Components said that it was the greatest level of demand it had ever received for a product at any one time.

For those who have been unable to purchase one, don’t worry – more will become available soon, and an even cheaper £16 version will go on sale later in the year.

Ted Mercer, The Partner who did the work, comments, “It has been very exciting to work on the OEM, commercialisation and distribution contract to enable the Raspberry Pi to go on sale and we wish it every success in inspiring a new generation of schoolchildren to learn to program.”

●  delivering value for money for the NHS, with secure provision of safe and effective medicines at reasonable prices, and encouraging efficient development nad competitive supply of medicines.

●  promoting a profitable pharma industry that invests in R&D to encourage future developments for the benefit of patients and industry in the UK and elsewhere.

●  promoting take-up of new clinically proven and cost-effective medicines in the NHS in a sustainable manner.

●  ensuring that the NHS and industry develop sustainable financial and investment strategies through a stable and predictable market.

The Report highlights the Government’s commitment to the pharma sector, which has annual sales of £32 billion.  UK’s exports in 2009 were £20bn compared to imports of £13bn. The UK remains one of the world’s leading locations for pharma R&D, for example with £4.3bn invested in 2008.  The Government wishes to ensure that the UK remains a leading location for life sciences investment. The Prime Minister’s launch of “Strategy for UK Life Sciences” in December 2011 shows how the Government will encourage closer collaboration between the NHS, industry and universities. The Government’s strategy for the next 10-15 years includes promoting new links between researchers, clinicians and business; improving the UK’s performance on clinical R&D; ensuring the UK is supplying high-skilled people for the industry; getting research and treatments to patients more quickly and safely; and backing new scientific advances.

The Report also shows that as against other leading western developed countries, the UK had the cheapest medicines in 2009 and 2010.  This remains a big concern for the pharma industry – how will it receive a fair price for its products? With the US’s prices being nearly three times as expensive as the UK’s in 2010, it shows the challenges of pharma companies who wish to supply in the UK compared to the US.

The Report can be found here.

Witty warns that big pharma are cutting back on the European operations in favour of more helpful markets. He criticised health policies in Europe as being damaging for innovation and leading to the region slipping behind other places. Germany has introduced a value-based pricing system that many suppliers find unacceptable including a mandatory 16% rebate on prescriptions, and France and the UK also have a reputation as being resistant to new drugs.  Meanwhile, the European practice of referring to other prices in Europe could have a devastating effect on drug suppliers as Spain and Greece’s extreme austerity measures with massive cuts in what they pay will have a knock-on effect elsewhere.

GSK has been frustrated by the obstacles in the way of introducing new drugs in Europe which could have excellent patient outcomes.  This reared its head last year with the UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence’s (NICE’s) decision not to approve GSK’s Benlysta product to treat lupus, despite having been used in many other places.

The EPO found in accordance with the Enlarged Board of Appeal ruling that as the patent was primarily related to dialysis treatment it was to fall within the definition of a method of surgical treatment and therefore should be excluded from patentability under Article 53 (c) of the European Patent Convention. The EPO agreed that the patent could not fall outside from Article 53 (c) or under any exclusion as the invention was not designed to be used in a non-medical, commercial environment and dialysis could not be classed as a minor intervention and/or treatment on an uncritical part of the body.

For the full decision of the EPO please go to http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t071695eu1.html

One opportunity has been seized by big Pharma company, Bristol-Myers Squibb, through its recent acquisition of Inhibitex, a biopharmaceutical company, at a cost of US$2.5 billion. Inhibitex is currently developing a promising new hepatitis C drug, which though currently only in Phase II development has shown great potential. With over 150 million people worldwide suffering from hepatitis C and over 75% of liver disease being attributed to the illness, producing an effective drug to combat or manage the disease is foremost in the mind of the Pharma industry today; and Bristol-Myers Squibb is not alone. Only last November, Gilead Sciences, Inc agreed to pay US$11 billion for Pharmasset, Inc, another company refocusing on the development of further hepatitis C treatments and with Merck, Vertex and Johnson & Johnson also rumoured to be targeting the hepatitis C market, we can see that big Pharma are on the hunt.

Laura Mole, a member of MAB’s Pharmaceutical and Life Sciences Sector team says, “This latest acquisition by Bristol-Myers Squibb is living proof that the industry is changing and big Pharma are almost panic buying in order to build and diversify their portfolios. This is shown by the acquisition of not only market ready products but also drugs still in the development stages. It is clear that with the Patent Cliff threatening, and with Bristol-Myers Squibb itself to fall victim with its soon-to-expire patent protection on blockbuster drug Plavix, any opportunity to grow and protect will be taken. Small/mid sized Pharma had better be ready for the bidding war to come.”

In AstraZeneca’s case, it has established the Science and Technology Integration Office, which will develop collaborative projects with other businesses, universities, governments and charities. AstraZeneca is continuing with its quest to find “the next big thing” with innovation but through cheaper means – effectively building its links with outside providers of research and development.  Meanwhile, some others in the industry such as GSK, the UK’s biggest pharma company, are looking to mitigate against the dangers by diversifying their operations.

AstraZeneca has already signed a deal last month with the Medical Research Council, under which academics can investigate the use of 22 of AstraZeneca’s clinical compounds in treating diseases. AstraZeneca has also recently entered into an agreement with IMS Health, to use IMS Health’s data to assess how well its drugs respond to patients, so as to be able to prove their value-for-money and usefulness to the customers.

The loss of patents comes against a backdrop of attacks on the prices paid by public health systems for drugs in the face of the debt crisis. With harder regulatory burdens to get any new drugs to pass clinical trials and fewer blockbuster possibilities, pharma companies are affected whichever way you turn.

Paul Gershlick, a Partner and Head of Pharmaceuticals and Life Sciences at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP, predicts: “The combined effects of the patent cliff and other factors are going to force the pharma industry into change.  Things cannot continue to go on the way they are currently doing. It is of great concern that this survey shows that most people think that the industry is not adapting fast enough to the external factors affecting it. If the industry does not change quicker, this will have catastrophic effects on the companies that invest in developing and producing the new drugs that improve people’s health.”

Paul Gershlick, a Partner and Head of Pharmaceuticals and Life Sciences at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP, comments: “According to evidence from the BioIndustry Association, the UK share of clinical trials has fallen from 6% to 2% in the last decade. The UK also went from the fourth largest location for clinical trials in 2006 to twelfth just two years later. The UK has a long history of being a global leader in developing new pharmaceutical products. A lot of jobs and expertise have been based here as a result. Anything the Government can do to make drug discovery conditions better so as to reverse the declining trend and make the UK a more enticing place to discover new drugs has to be a good thing.”

India and China both have an established and successful generics based pharmaceutical industry and as tens of billions of pounds of  patent protected drugs come off patent soon (known as the “patent cliff”), they look set to benefit by releasing cheaper generic  alternatives – making themselves a small fortune in the process. Both the Wall Street Journal and BBC News have reported on the most recent victim of the patent cliff in which India-based firm Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited confirmed the release of an FDA-approved generic version of the 10 billion dollar a year drug “Lipitor” owned by the global pharmaceutical company, Pfizer. The new generic drug will be called “Atorvastatin” and with Lipitor’s patent having now expired, there is nothing Pfizer can do about it – except try to develop itself or buy in the next big thing from another research and developer.

With such a Robin Hood approach to pharmaceuticals there are mixed opinions about the impact the patent cliff is having on the pharmaceutical industry as a whole. The large pharmaceutical companies claim that the patent cliff is affecting their ability to raise funds for research and development which in turn is inhibiting advances in new and improved pharmaceuticals, to the detriment of patients. The smaller generic based companies and some consumer groups however are hailing the patent cliff as an opportunity to offer a wider-ranging and affordable selection of medicines to both the public and private sectors.

Laura Mole, from Matthew Arnold and Baldwin LLP’s Pharmaceutical and Life Sciences Sector Group Team, says, “Whilst I appreciate continued research and development in the pharmaceutical industry as a whole is vital for the production of new, more advanced drugs to combat human illness, I cannot help but see good quality, affordable alternative medicines as a good thing for the consumer and the NHS in these difficult financial times. More drugs will cost less so more patients will benefit. The important thing in the long-term, though, is that there is sufficient funding in the industry to incentivise continued research and development so that patients continue to benefit with further medical advances. More of the early-stage development is being done by start-up companies, with big pharma companies stepping in if the prospects look good.”

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that it was sufficient to say that the protein was potentially useful for diagnosing, preventing or treating a large number of categories of disorders in the immune system, despite this assertion having been based on the protein’s membership of the TNF ligand superfamily of substances. This was because at the time of the patent application, the particular application of the individual protein was not known.

In following the EPO’s ruling, the Supreme Court said that it was important for UK patent law to be aligned as far as possible with EPO decisions. National courts could still come to its own rulings if it considers that the EPO has taken the law in an appropriate direction, misapplied a previous EPO ruling or not taken a particular argument into account. However, where the EPO had taken a consistent approach in several decisions, it would be unusual for the national court not to follow the EPO’s rulings.

On the type of patent application before the court in this case, the EPO had adopted a consistent approach, being:

• The patent had to disclose a practical application and profitable use which could be expected to lead to commercial benefit.
• The patent had to show a real possibility of exploitation.
• A skilled person had to be able to exploit the patent without undue burden.
• A concrete benefit had to be derived directly from the description and common general knowledge.
• Speculative use would not be sufficient, but plausible use could be.
• The plausible use could be assisted by later evidence.
• If all family or superfamily members of the protein had a role in controlling cells, it would be sufficient to assign a similar for the protein.

Paul Gershlick, a Partner at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP and editor of Upload-IT, comments, “This case should give businesses in the pharmaceutical industry certainty. It will also act as encouragement for innovating businesses that discover a protein where the protein is a member of a wider family or superfamily that has a clear role.”

However, other countries in the European Union (EU) have implemented the Directives with different interpretations. The UK only exempts those acts specifically required to obtain marketing authorisation of a generic drug. Germany provides an exemption in relation to any medicinal product (not just a generic drug) in any country (not just within the EU). Spain, meanwhile, has a tighter restriction on the exemption in a similar way that the UK does. The variation has come about largely due to the EU Directives being interpreted differently by different national courts in view of national case law.

The IPO has therefore started a consultation with stakeholders to obtain evidence of how the law should evolve in the UK, as there are concerns that stakeholders are avoiding holding clinical and field trials in the UK due to the tighter regulatory framework compared to some other EU countries. Further information in relation to the consultation, including the list of questions for stakeholders to respond to as part of the consultation, can be found at http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-policy/consult/consult-live/consult-2011-bolar.htm .

The responses to the consultation must be received by the IPO by 31 July 2011, and results of the consultation are expected in autumn 2011.

• Continued push for a single European Union patent system.
• Modernisation of the European Community Trade Mark system. This would include speeding up the registration procedure and increasing certainty over what constitutes a registrable trade mark.
• Creating a comprehensive framework for copyright in the digital single market. That would include multi-territorial collective management of copyright so that there would be online copyright licensing. There would also be a consultation on user-generated content to see if there should be more freedom for amateur producers of non-commercial film to be exempt when incorporating other copyright works. In addition, the Commission said it would propose a Directive on permitted uses of orphan works, and it actually proposed the Directive this at the same time as the strategy document.
• Replacement of the Customs Regulation to strengthen enforcement of intellectual property rights. As with the orphan works proposal, this was also introduced at the same time as the publication of the strategy.

For more on the strategy, click here: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/barnier/headlines/news/2011/05/20110524_en.htm.

• Creation of a Digital Copyright Exchange. This would be a centralised digital copyright works marketplace where licences to copyright content could be readily bought and sold, akin to a copyright shop. This would extend what currently happens with through music collections agencies such as PRS. The aim is to have this implemented by the end of 2012. In addition, the UK should support the European Commission’s proposals to establish a framework for cross-border licensing.
• Introduction of legislation to permit use of orphan works – copyright works where the rights owner has not been ascertained. The European Commission has also come up with similar plans recently.
• Allowing wider exceptions for lawful copying, such as to include format shifting between a laptop and mp3 player, which is still unlawful. This may also include copyright exceptions for non-commercial research, such as digital copying of medical journals for computerised analysis in research. Parody and library archiving would also be exceptions to copyright. The exceptions would be enshrined in law and non-excludable by contracting out by agreement between the parties. There is no place in the report for anything as extensive as the “fair use” exception along the lines that US law has, as that would not be compatible with European Union law.
• Increasing the Intellectual Property Office’s ability to give legally binding opinions on changes to intellectual property law in response to economic or technological changes.
• A careful look at the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The Government should look not just to enforcement but also education, growing legitimate markets and modernising copyright law. Other countries’ experiences should be considered when the Digital Economy Act starts to become operational in 2012.
• Try to remove patent thickets that stifle innovation. Thickets arise where there are overlapping patent claims by multiple applicants, resulting in delays and extra costs in innovation. This should involve cutting backlogs in patent applications. There should also be a disincentive – perhaps through cost of additional fees for patent renewals – to discourage patents that do not add much value. Computer-related patent rules also need to be clearer and stricter to avoid patents being granted for non-technical inventions or business methods.
• Investigate whether the system of protection for designs should be made clearer. The Intellectual Property Office should conduct an assessment based on evidence within the next 12 months to consider the relationship between design rights and innovation.

It now remains to be seen what the Government will do in terms of implementation of the recommendations within the report. There have been other intellectual property reviews previously – most notably the Gowers Review – which were not then followed-up significantly.

The European Commission has been trying to introduce a single patent system in the EU for years, but has always struggled to get political agreement. Aside from Spain and Italy, due to their concerns over being sidelined in favour of the other large EU countries on the language issue, this seems like a possible step. Michel Barnier, the Commission’s Internal Mark and Services Commissioner, said: “It is my deeply held conviction there is no sustainable economic growth without innovation.  And no innovation without efficient intellectual property protection.”

DC manufactures ‘own-brand’ cartridges for sale in the UK, as well as selling under its own ‘Jet Tec’ brand. The case will be watched closely by other ‘own brand’ cartridge manufacturers who base their products on branded designs.

The details of the claims have not been made public as yet, so it is unclear which specific patents are alleged to have been infringed. However, Kodak’s actions suggest that they are willing to go as far as it takes to protect its patents, which could have an effect on other photo-sharing websites that operate in a similar way to Shutterfly, such as Yahoo’s Flickr and Google’s Picasa. It is also likely to force smaller such businesses to take a licence from Kodak, to avoid the expense of fighting such a claim in court.

Nokia filed proceedings against Apple in the US Federal Courts in Delaware and Wisconsin early in 2010 in relation to 24 alleged infringements (see here), and has followed that up by alleging 13 further infringements by filing in the High Court in London, the Dusseldorf and Mannheim District Courts in Germany, and the District Court of the Hague in the Netherlands.

The alleged infringements in the UK relate to touch user interface, on-device application stores, signal noise suppression and modulator structures, and elsewhere the infringements are alleged to cover such functionality as display illumination and radio integration.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the inventor employee is only entitled to be rewarded compensation based on the actual earnings of the employer. It should not be based on the open market if the invention had been fully exploited by licensing it better. There is no effective ‘best endeavours’ obligation on the employer to exploit the patent. In addition, there should not be the bizarre result where an employee could end up with greater compensation than the royalties earned by the employer. That was not the purpose of the legislation, which was intended to reward an employee by receiving part of the employer’s benefit.

Technical standards are usually agreed by businesses that have an interest in co-operating so that they can all benefit from the greater good, and this is usually on the basis of an agreement that any patents involved would be licensed on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. For the greater good in this case, it must be hoped that the parties will stop fighting and will settle their differences long before the US District Court for the Western District of Washington has to rule.

At present, there is no single European patent. The European Patent Office provides for a single route to apply for multiple individual patent rights in its contracting territories. Applications must be filed in English, French or German.

The trouble is that once granted you have to split the application into multiple separate patents in each of the countries in which you want your invention to be protected. This process is called national validation. As different countries can insist on different amounts of translation, the costs can soon mount up. For example, Spain and Italy require the full text to be translated into their native languages – hardly an ideal unified system.

There have been many failed attempts to create an EU-wide patent system. The most recent proposal is for patents to be applied for only in English, French or German (the EU’s official languages) with translations of the patent claims into the other two of those three languages, and then automatic translations (providing only approximate accuracy) into all other languages. Understandably, other EU countries have cried foul, not least Spain and Italy, as the move would give an advantage to English, French and German speaking countries in registering a patent.  That’s why there is still deadlock.

Amongst all this mess, businesses with patents need a cost-effective solution for protection across Europe. Under the current system, the most effective solution we are aware of is a dedicated patent translations and validations company called Europat, which can be found at www.Europat.eu.com.