H Lundbeck AS v Norpharma SPA & Ors [2011] EWHC 907 (Pat) (14 April 2011)

H Lundbeck AS v Norpharma SPA & Ors [2011] EWHC 907 (Pat) (14 April 2011)

The 614 patent is not anticipated by the Danish application, as it does not disclose the specific SO3 concentration range required by claim 1. The patent is not obvious over the Forney papers, as the prior art does not teach or make it obvious to use the claimed SO3 concentration in open, unpressurised reactors. Claim 22 is not insufficient. Lundbeck's processes infringe the 614 patent. The section 64 defence does not apply as the evidence of prior use was unreliable. The delayed registration of assignment limits Infosint's remedies under section 68.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 907 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant: H. Lundbeck A/S; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Norpharma SpA; 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 Infringement and Revocation / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Patent held valid and infringed; remedies limited by delayed assignment registration.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Patent Infringement, Obviousness, Novelty, Insufficiency, Limitation of Remedy, Assignment Registration
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Patent Infringement Obviousness Novelty Insufficiency Limitation of Remedy +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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H. Lundbeck A/S

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

Norpharma SpA

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Infosint S/A

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 Infringement and Revocation / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether European Patent (UK) 1 118 614 is invalid for lack of novelty or obviousness
  2. 2 Whether claim 22 is invalid for insufficiency
  3. 3 Whether Lundbeck infringed the 614 patent

Ratio Decidendi

The 614 patent is not anticipated by the Danish application, as it does not disclose the specific SO3 concentration range required by claim 1. The patent is not obvious over the Forney papers, as the prior art does not teach or make it obvious to use the claimed SO3 concentration in open, unpressurised reactors. Claim 22 is not insufficient. Lundbeck's processes infringe the 614 patent. The section 64 defence does not apply as the evidence of prior use was unreliable. The delayed registration of assignment limits Infosint's remedies under section 68.

Court Disposition

Patent held valid and infringed; remedies limited by delayed assignment registration.

Orders

  • Declaration of validity of European Patent (UK) 1 118 614
  • Declaration of infringement by Lundbeck and subsidiaries