Accord Healthcare Ltd & Ors v Regents of the University of California & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 936 (23 July 2025)

Accord Healthcare Ltd & Ors v Regents of the University of California & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 936 (23 July 2025)

The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge did not err in law or principle in finding that the claimed invention was not obvious over the prior art. The judge's assessment that the evidence of obviousness was tainted by hindsight and lacked a proper technical context was justified. The modification from cyclobutyl to dimethyl was not shown to be an obvious step for the skilled team based on the prior art, and the focus on close analogues was driven by hindsight knowledge of the patent. The statutory test of obviousness was correctly applied.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 936
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Accord Healthcare Limited; Claimant/appellant: Accord-UK Limited; Claimant/appellant: Sandoz AG; Claimant/appellant: Sandoz Limited; Claimant/appellant: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited; Claimant/appellant: Teva UK Limited; Defendant/respondent: The Regents of the University of California; Defendant/respondent: Astellas Pharma Europe Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (patents Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment upheld.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Pharmaceutical Patents, Supplementary Protection Certificates (spc), Prior Art, Technical Contribution, Standard of Review on Appeal
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Obviousness Pharmaceutical Patents Supplementary Protection Certificates (spc) Prior Art Technical Contribution +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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Accord Healthcare Limited

Claimant/appellant

Accord-UK Limited

Claimant/appellant

Sandoz AG

Claimant/appellant

Sandoz Limited

Claimant/appellant

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited

Claimant/appellant

Teva UK Limited

Claimant/appellant

The Regents of the University of California

Defendant/respondent

Astellas Pharma Europe Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (patents Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimed invention (enzalutamide for prostate cancer) was obvious over the prior art (the Poster and the Slides) and thus invalid under UK patent law; whether the High Court judge erred in law or principle in dismissing the revocation claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge did not err in law or principle in finding that the claimed invention was not obvious over the prior art. The judge's assessment that the evidence of obviousness was tainted by hindsight and lacked a proper technical context was justified. The modification from cyclobutyl to dimethyl was not shown to be an obvious step for the skilled team based on the prior art, and the focus on close analogues was driven by hindsight knowledge of the patent. The statutory test of obviousness was correctly applied.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment upheld.

Orders

  • Claims for revocation of European Patent (UK) No. 1 893 196 and SPC No. SPC/GB13/079 dismissed.
  • Patent and SPC remain valid.