Generics [uk] Ltd (t/a Mylan) v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 1848 (Pat) (11 July 2012)

Generics [uk] Ltd (t/a Mylan) v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 1848 (Pat) (11 July 2012)

The patent was found invalid for lack of entitlement to priority, obviousness over the prior art, and insufficiency. The claims were not entitled to the earliest priority date, and the invention was obvious in light of the prior art. The patent was also insufficiently disclosed. Mylan's product would not infringe any valid claim of the patent.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1848 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Generics [UK] Limited trading as Mylan; First Defendant: Yeda Research and Development Co. Ltd; Second Defendant: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Non Infringement Claim / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Patent revoked; declaration of non-infringement granted
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Insufficiency, Added Matter, Non Infringement, Pharmaceutical Patents
Intellectual Property Patent Law Pharmaceutical Law Patent Validity Obviousness Insufficiency Added Matter Non Infringement +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Generics [UK] Limited trading as Mylan

Claimant

Yeda Research and Development Co. Ltd

First Defendant

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Non Infringement Claim / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Entitlement to priority date
  2. 2 Obviousness over prior art
  3. 3 Obviousness for lack of technical contribution

Ratio Decidendi

The patent was found invalid for lack of entitlement to priority, obviousness over the prior art, and insufficiency. The claims were not entitled to the earliest priority date, and the invention was obvious in light of the prior art. The patent was also insufficiently disclosed. Mylan's product would not infringe any valid claim of the patent.

Court Disposition

Patent revoked; declaration of non-infringement granted

Orders

  • European Patent (UK) No. 0 762 888 revoked
  • Declaration of non-infringement in favour of Mylan