Accord Healthcare Limited & Ors v The Regents of the University of California & Anor

Accord Healthcare Limited & Ors v The Regents of the University of California & Anor

The judge was entitled to conclude that the applicant's expert evidence was infected with hindsight and lacked articulation of the context in which the skilled team would pursue the claimed modification. The technical reasoning alone was insufficient to establish obviousness; the appeal fails as no error of law or principle was demonstrated.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Pharmaceutical Patents, Supplementary Protection Certificates
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Obviousness Pharmaceutical Patents Supplementary Protection Certificates

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether European Patent (UK) No. 1 893 196 and SPC No. SPC/GB13/079 are invalid for obviousness over prior art (the Poster and the Slides)
  2. 2 Whether the claimed invention was obvious to a skilled team in light of prior disclosures
  3. 3 Whether the patent plausibly disclosed a technical contribution

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to conclude that the applicant's expert evidence was infected with hindsight and lacked articulation of the context in which the skilled team would pursue the claimed modification. The technical reasoning alone was insufficient to establish obviousness; the appeal fails as no error of law or principle was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • No error of law or principle found in the High Court's judgment.