Akebia Therapeutics Inc v Fibrogen, Inc [2020] EWHC 866 (Pat) (20 April 2020)

Akebia Therapeutics Inc v Fibrogen, Inc [2020] EWHC 866 (Pat) (20 April 2020)

The Court found that the Family A Patents were not obvious over Epstein et al., and the Family B Patents were not obvious over WO 997. The Patents were not insufficient. Vadadustat would infringe certain claims of the Patents if marketed as intended. Most of the proposed amendments were allowed, except where they did not cure invalidity. The Patents, as amended, were held valid and infringed.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 866 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant/defendant: Akebia Therapeutics Inc; Claimant/defendant: Otsuka Pharmaceutical Company Limited; Defendant/claimant: FibroGen, Inc; Claimant: Astellas Pharma Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Infringement / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Patents (as amended) held valid and infringed; most amendments allowed; claims for revocation dismissed.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Insufficiency, Infringement, Amendment of Patents
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Obviousness Insufficiency Infringement Amendment of Patents

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akebia Therapeutics Inc

Claimant/defendant

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Company Limited

Claimant/defendant

FibroGen, Inc

Defendant/claimant

Astellas Pharma Inc

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Infringement / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Family A Patents are obvious over Epstein et al.
  2. 2 Whether the Family B Patents are obvious over WO 997
  3. 3 Whether all the Patents are insufficient

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Family A Patents were not obvious over Epstein et al., and the Family B Patents were not obvious over WO 997. The Patents were not insufficient. Vadadustat would infringe certain claims of the Patents if marketed as intended. Most of the proposed amendments were allowed, except where they did not cure invalidity. The Patents, as amended, were held valid and infringed.

Court Disposition

Patents (as amended) held valid and infringed; most amendments allowed; claims for revocation dismissed.

Orders

  • Patents to be amended as allowed by the Court.
  • Claims for revocation dismissed.