Leo Pharma (a/s Leo Laboratories Ltd) v Sandoz Ltd

Leo Pharma (a/s Leo Laboratories Ltd) v Sandoz Ltd

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s findings that Sandoz failed to prove anticipation by inevitable result, that the skilled team would not have obviously or routinely discovered the monohydrate form, and that the patent was not invalid for obviousness or anticipation. The judge’s evaluation of the evidence was amply supported and not perverse.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Leo Pharma A/S; Claimant/respondent: Leo Laboratories Limited; Appellant/defendant: Sandoz Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patents) / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Anticipation, Pharmaceutical Patents
Intellectual Property Law Patent Law Patent Validity Obviousness Anticipation Pharmaceutical 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leo Pharma A/S

Claimant/respondent

Leo Laboratories Limited

Claimant/respondent

Sandoz Limited

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (patents) / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Leo’s EP (UK) No. 0 679 154 is invalid for anticipation or obviousness over prior art
  2. 2 Whether the monohydrate form of calcipotriol was inevitably produced by the prior art
  3. 3 Whether the patent was obvious in light of prior art and common general knowledge

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s findings that Sandoz failed to prove anticipation by inevitable result, that the skilled team would not have obviously or routinely discovered the monohydrate form, and that the patent was not invalid for obviousness or anticipation. The judge’s evaluation of the evidence was amply supported and not perverse.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the patent is held valid.