(1) Teva UK Ltd (2) Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v Leo Pharma A/s

(1) Teva UK Ltd (2) Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v Leo Pharma A/s

The judge erred in principle by finding that the use of Arlamol E as a solvent was obvious; the evidence showed that identifying a suitable non-aqueous solvent was not routine and required a research project with no fair expectation of success. The invention met a long-felt want and was not obvious. There was no added matter or insufficiency.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: TEVA UK Ltd; Claimant/respondent: TEVA Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd; Defendant/appellant: LEO Pharma A/S; Third Party/appellant: LEO Laboratories Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patents) / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Patents Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; patents held valid and not obvious.
Legal Topics
Obviousness, Added Matter, Insufficiency, Pharmaceutical Patents
Intellectual Property Law Patent Law Obviousness Added Matter Insufficiency Pharmaceutical Patents

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TEVA UK Ltd

Claimant/respondent

TEVA Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd

Claimant/respondent

LEO Pharma A/S

Defendant/appellant

LEO Laboratories Limited

Third Party/appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patents held by LEO were obvious over prior art (Turi)
  2. 2 Whether the patents contained added matter
  3. 3 Whether the patents were insufficiently disclosed

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in principle by finding that the use of Arlamol E as a solvent was obvious; the evidence showed that identifying a suitable non-aqueous solvent was not routine and required a research project with no fair expectation of success. The invention met a long-felt want and was not obvious. There was no added matter or insufficiency.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; patents held valid and not obvious.

Orders

  • Reverse the High Court’s finding of obviousness.
  • Patents not revoked; claims for added matter and insufficiency dismissed.