Teva UK Ltd & Ors v Astrazeneca AB [2012] EWHC 655 (Pat) (22 March 2012)

Teva UK Ltd & Ors v Astrazeneca AB [2012] EWHC 655 (Pat) (22 March 2012)

The patent is invalid for obviousness because the skilled team, equipped with the common general knowledge and the Gefvert prior art, would have found it obvious to formulate quetiapine in a sustained release form using known gelling agents and excipients, and there were no technical barriers or inventive steps that would have prevented them from doing so.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 655 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: TEVA UK LIMITED; Claimant: TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED; Claimant: ACCORD HEALTHCARE LIMITED; Claimant: INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED; Claimant: HEXAL AG; Claimant: SANDOZ LIMITED; Defendant: ASTRAZENECA AB
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation/invalidity Proceedings / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Patent revoked as invalid for obviousness
Legal Topics
Obviousness, Pharmaceutical Patents, Sustained Release Formulations, Common General Knowledge, First Pass Metabolism, Compliance and Convenience in Dosing
Intellectual Property Patents Obviousness Pharmaceutical Patents Sustained Release Formulations Common General Knowledge First Pass Metabolism Compliance and Convenience in Dosing

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TEVA UK LIMITED

Claimant

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Claimant

ACCORD HEALTHCARE LIMITED

Claimant

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED

Claimant

HEXAL AG

Claimant

SANDOZ LIMITED

Claimant

ASTRAZENECA AB

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation/invalidity Proceedings / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether European Patent (UK) No. 0 907 364 is invalid for obviousness over prior art (Gefvert)
  2. 2 Whether the claimed sustained release formulation of quetiapine was obvious to the skilled team at the priority date

Ratio Decidendi

The patent is invalid for obviousness because the skilled team, equipped with the common general knowledge and the Gefvert prior art, would have found it obvious to formulate quetiapine in a sustained release form using known gelling agents and excipients, and there were no technical barriers or inventive steps that would have prevented them from doing so.

Court Disposition

Patent revoked as invalid for obviousness

Orders

  • European Patent (UK) No. 0 907 364 is revoked
  • No order as to amendments, as AstraZeneca did not pursue amendment applications