Medimmune Ltd v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd & Anor

Medimmune Ltd v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd & Anor

The patents are invalid as they are not entitled to priority from PD3, and the claimed inventions are obvious in light of Professor Smith's Banbury Conference disclosure. Even if valid, Novartis did not infringe because the process used to make ranibizumab did not fall within the claims, as it did not produce a population with a range of binding specificities as required. The claims are not invalid for insufficiency or added matter. If the process claims had been infringed, ranibizumab would have been a product obtained directly by the process under UK law, and the Biotech Directive would not have limited this protection.

Parties
Claimant: MedImmune Limited; First Defendant: Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited; Second Defendant: Medical Research Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Claims 5-8 of 511 and claim 1 of 777 are invalid for lack of priority and obviousness. No infringement by Novartis. If valid and infringed, ranibizumab would be a product obtained directly by the process, not excluded by the Biotech Directive.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Obviousness, Sufficiency, Added Matter, Priority Rights, Biotechnology Patents
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Infringement Patent Validity Obviousness Sufficiency Added Matter Priority Rights +1 more

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MedImmune Limited

Claimant

Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited

First Defendant

Medical Research Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether MedImmune's patents are valid over the prior art and entitled to priority from PD3
  2. 2 Whether Novartis infringed the patents by the sale of ranibizumab (Lucentis)
  3. 3 Whether the patents are invalid for obviousness, insufficiency, or added matter

Ratio Decidendi

The patents are invalid as they are not entitled to priority from PD3, and the claimed inventions are obvious in light of Professor Smith's Banbury Conference disclosure. Even if valid, Novartis did not infringe because the process used to make ranibizumab did not fall within the claims, as it did not produce a population with a range of binding specificities as required. The claims are not invalid for insufficiency or added matter. If the process claims had been infringed, ranibizumab would have been a product obtained directly by the process under UK law, and the Biotech Directive would not have limited this protection.

Court Disposition

Claims 5-8 of 511 and claim 1 of 777 are invalid for lack of priority and obviousness. No infringement by Novartis. If valid and infringed, ranibizumab would be a product obtained directly by the process, not excluded by the Biotech Directive.