Merz Pharma GmbH & Co. KGaA v Allergan Inc.

Merz Pharma GmbH & Co. KGaA v Allergan Inc.

Claims 1 and 5 of the patent are invalid for added matter, lack of novelty, and obviousness because the patent claims subject matter not disclosed in the original application, is anticipated by prior art including BOTOX and DYSPORT, and is obvious to the skilled person based on common general knowledge and prior disclosures.

Parties
Claimant: Merz Pharma GmbH & Co. KGaA; Defendant: Allergan, Inc.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation / Final Judgment
Outcome
Patent revoked
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Added Matter, Novelty, Obviousness, Insufficiency, Swiss Claims, Medical Use Claims
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Added Matter Novelty Obviousness Insufficiency Swiss Claims +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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Merz Pharma GmbH & Co. KGaA

Claimant

Allergan, Inc.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patent discloses added matter beyond the original application
  2. 2 Whether the patent lacks novelty
  3. 3 Whether the patent is obvious

Ratio Decidendi

Claims 1 and 5 of the patent are invalid for added matter, lack of novelty, and obviousness because the patent claims subject matter not disclosed in the original application, is anticipated by prior art including BOTOX and DYSPORT, and is obvious to the skilled person based on common general knowledge and prior disclosures.

Court Disposition

Patent revoked

Orders

  • Claims 1 and 5 declared invalid for added matter, lack of novelty, and obviousness
  • Patent revoked