H Lundbeck AS v Norpharma SPA & Ors

H Lundbeck AS v Norpharma SPA & Ors

Claims 1 and 22 of the 614 patent are invalid for obviousness over the Forney papers. The skilled person would, without invention, use 20-30% oleum in an open, unpressurised reactor as claimed. The patent is not invalid for lack of novelty over the Danish application, nor for insufficiency. Had the patent been valid, some Lundbeck processes would have infringed, but section 64 would provide a defence for certain acts, and section 68 would limit remedies due to delayed registration.

Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant: H. Lundbeck A/S; First Defendant: Norpharma SpA; Second Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Infosint S/A; Third Party/part 20 Defendant: Lundbeck Limited; Fourth Party/part 20 Defendant: Lundbeck Pharmaceuticals Limited; Fifth Party/part 20 Defendant: Lundbeck Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Infringement / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Patent claims invalid for obviousness; no relief granted for infringement.
Legal Topics
Obviousness, Novelty, Insufficiency, Infringement, Section 64 Defence, Section 68 Limitation
Intellectual Property Patents Obviousness Novelty Insufficiency Infringement Section 64 Defence Section 68 Limitation

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H. Lundbeck A/S

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

Norpharma SpA

First Defendant

Infosint S/A

Second Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Lundbeck Limited

Third Party/part 20 Defendant

Lundbeck Pharmaceuticals Limited

Fourth Party/part 20 Defendant

Lundbeck Group Limited

Fifth Party/part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Infringement / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether European Patent (UK) 1 118 614 is invalid for lack of novelty, obviousness, or insufficiency
  2. 2 Whether Lundbeck infringed the 614 patent
  3. 3 Whether Lundbeck has a defence under section 64 of the Patents Act 1977

Ratio Decidendi

Claims 1 and 22 of the 614 patent are invalid for obviousness over the Forney papers. The skilled person would, without invention, use 20-30% oleum in an open, unpressurised reactor as claimed. The patent is not invalid for lack of novelty over the Danish application, nor for insufficiency. Had the patent been valid, some Lundbeck processes would have infringed, but section 64 would provide a defence for certain acts, and section 68 would limit remedies due to delayed registration.

Court Disposition

Patent claims invalid for obviousness; no relief granted for infringement.

Orders

  • Claims 1 and 22 of European Patent (UK) 1 118 614 are invalid for obviousness.
  • If valid, certain Lundbeck processes would infringe, subject to section 64 defence and section 68 limitation.