Les Laboratoires Servier & Anor v Apotex Inc & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 445 (09 May 2008)

Les Laboratoires Servier & Anor v Apotex Inc & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 445 (09 May 2008)

The patent was invalid for lack of novelty and obviousness because the prior art (EP 0 380 341) inevitably produced the claimed a form crystalline product using obvious process steps, and the evidence showed no technical distinction or inventive step. The process and product claims were anticipated and obvious, and the patent specification did not provide a meaningful technical contribution.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 445
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Les Laboratoires Servier; Claimant/appellant: Servier Laboratories Limited; Defendant/respondent: Apotex Inc; Defendant/respondent: Apotex Pharmachem Inc; Defendant/respondent: Apotex Europe Limited; Defendant/respondent: Apotex UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Patent Appeal / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Novelty, Obviousness, Pharmaceutical Patents, Crystalline Forms, Process Claims
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Novelty Obviousness Pharmaceutical Patents Crystalline Forms Process Claims

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Les Laboratoires Servier

Claimant/appellant

Servier Laboratories Limited

Claimant/appellant

Apotex Inc

Defendant/respondent

Apotex Pharmachem Inc

Defendant/respondent

Apotex Europe Limited

Defendant/respondent

Apotex UK Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Patent Appeal / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Servier's EP (UK) 1 296 947 patent is invalid for lack of novelty and/or obviousness
  2. 2 Whether the process and product claims are anticipated by prior art (EP 0 380 341)
  3. 3 Whether the patent specification is sufficient under Art. 83 EPC

Ratio Decidendi

The patent was invalid for lack of novelty and obviousness because the prior art (EP 0 380 341) inevitably produced the claimed a form crystalline product using obvious process steps, and the evidence showed no technical distinction or inventive step. The process and product claims were anticipated and obvious, and the patent specification did not provide a meaningful technical contribution.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Patent held invalid for lack of novelty and obviousness
  • No continuation of interim injunction pending appeal