Celltrion Inc v Genentech, Inc & Anor [2025] EWHC 174 (Pat) (30 January 2025)

Celltrion Inc v Genentech, Inc & Anor [2025] EWHC 174 (Pat) (30 January 2025)

Claim 1 of the patent is novel over Liu because the prior art does not provide an individualised description of the claimed formulation, specifically the concentration and type of polysorbate; equivalents are not relevant to novelty assessment under English law; the patent is not invalid for lack of inventive step over Shiraki.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 174 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant: Celltrion Inc.; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Genentech, Inc.; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Novartis AG; Part 20 Claimant: Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited; Part 20 Defendant: Celltrion Healthcare United Kingdom Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Infringement / Post Trial Judgment
Outcome
Patent found valid; claim for revocation dismissed; counterclaim for infringement admitted.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Novelty, Inventive Step, Doctrine of Equivalents, Pharmaceutical Formulations
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Novelty Inventive Step Doctrine of Equivalents Pharmaceutical Formulations

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Celltrion Inc.

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

Genentech, Inc.

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Novartis AG

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited

Part 20 Claimant

Celltrion Healthcare United Kingdom Limited

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Infringement / Post Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether European Patent (UK) No. 3 805 248 B1 is invalid for lack of novelty
  2. 2 Whether the patent is invalid for lack of inventive step
  3. 3 Whether equivalents are relevant to novelty assessment under English law

Ratio Decidendi

Claim 1 of the patent is novel over Liu because the prior art does not provide an individualised description of the claimed formulation, specifically the concentration and type of polysorbate; equivalents are not relevant to novelty assessment under English law; the patent is not invalid for lack of inventive step over Shiraki.

Court Disposition

Patent found valid; claim for revocation dismissed; counterclaim for infringement admitted.

Orders

  • Revocation claim dismissed
  • Patent upheld as valid