Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Ltd v Eli Lilly & Company Ltd

Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Ltd v Eli Lilly & Company Ltd

The patent for olanzapine is valid because the prior art (235) did not specifically disclose or render obvious olanzapine; the selection was not arbitrary but was supported by evidence of a technical advantage. The EPO approach to novelty and inventive step applies, and the patent made a real technical contribution to the art. The attacks on novelty, obviousness, and sufficiency all fail.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (UK) Limited; Defendant/respondent: Eli Lilly and Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patents) / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Patents Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; patent upheld as valid.
Legal Topics
Novelty, Obviousness, Selection Patents, Pharmaceutical Patents, Sufficiency, Technical Contribution
Intellectual Property Law Patent Law Novelty Obviousness Selection Patents Pharmaceutical Patents Sufficiency Technical Contribution

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (UK) Limited

Claimant/appellant

Eli Lilly and Company Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (patents) / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Patents Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether European Patent (UK) No 0 454 436 (olanzapine) is invalid for lack of novelty over British Provisional Specification 1,533,235 ('235')
  2. 2 Whether the patent is obvious over 235 or Chakrabarti 1980
  3. 3 Whether the patent is a valid selection patent under the applicable law

Ratio Decidendi

The patent for olanzapine is valid because the prior art (235) did not specifically disclose or render obvious olanzapine; the selection was not arbitrary but was supported by evidence of a technical advantage. The EPO approach to novelty and inventive step applies, and the patent made a real technical contribution to the art. The attacks on novelty, obviousness, and sufficiency all fail.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; patent upheld as valid.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Patent for olanzapine upheld as valid