Medimmune Ltd v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 1669 (Pat) (05 July 2011)

Medimmune Ltd v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 1669 (Pat) (05 July 2011)

The patents are invalid for lack of entitlement to priority from the relevant priority document (PD3), and are obvious over the prior art (Parmley & Smith and the Banbury Conference). Even if priority were established, the claims are invalid for obviousness. There is no infringement as the process used to make ranibizumab does not fall within the scope of the claims.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1669 (Pat)
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 / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Patents held invalid; no infringement found; counterclaim for revocation succeeds.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Obviousness, Priority Entitlement, Sufficiency, Added Matter
Intellectual Property Patents Biotechnology Patent Infringement Patent Validity Obviousness Priority Entitlement Sufficiency +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
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 / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Novartis infringed MedImmune's patents by the sale of ranibizumab (Lucentis)
  2. 2 Whether the patents are invalid for lack of priority, obviousness, insufficiency, or added matter

Ratio Decidendi

The patents are invalid for lack of entitlement to priority from the relevant priority document (PD3), and are obvious over the prior art (Parmley & Smith and the Banbury Conference). Even if priority were established, the claims are invalid for obviousness. There is no infringement as the process used to make ranibizumab does not fall within the scope of the claims.

Court Disposition

Patents held invalid; no infringement found; counterclaim for revocation succeeds.

Orders

  • Claims 5-8 of EP 0 774 511 and claim 1 of EP 2 055 777 revoked.
  • Claim for infringement dismissed.