Novartis Ag & Ors v Focus Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd & Ors

Novartis Ag & Ors v Focus Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd & Ors

The patent was invalid for added matter because it disclosed the use of a particular starting dose for rivastigmine delivered by a TTS, and that this starting dose could be delivered by TTSs not disclosed in the application. The patent was also invalid for obviousness because the claimed starting dose would have been obvious to try in light of prior art and common general knowledge. The judge's findings on insufficiency and claim construction were upheld.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Novartis AG; Claimant/appellant: LTS Lohmann Therapie-Systeme AG; Claimant/appellant: Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Focus Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Actavis Group PTC EHF; Defendant/respondent: Actavis UK Ltd; Defendant/respondent: TEVA UK Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (patents Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; patent found invalid for added matter and obviousness.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Added Matter, Obviousness, Insufficiency, Pharmaceutical Patents
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Added Matter Obviousness Insufficiency 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Novartis AG

Claimant/appellant

LTS Lohmann Therapie-Systeme AG

Claimant/appellant

Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd

Claimant/appellant

Focus Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Actavis Group PTC EHF

Defendant/respondent

Actavis UK Ltd

Defendant/respondent

TEVA UK Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (patents Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patent discloses added matter beyond the application
  2. 2 Whether the patent lacks inventive step (obviousness)
  3. 3 Whether the patent is insufficient

Ratio Decidendi

The patent was invalid for added matter because it disclosed the use of a particular starting dose for rivastigmine delivered by a TTS, and that this starting dose could be delivered by TTSs not disclosed in the application. The patent was also invalid for obviousness because the claimed starting dose would have been obvious to try in light of prior art and common general knowledge. The judge's findings on insufficiency and claim construction were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; patent found invalid for added matter and obviousness.

Orders

  • Patent revoked for added matter and lack of inventive step.
  • No relief granted to Novartis.