Gedeon Richter Plc v Bayer Schering Pharma AG [2011] EWHC 583 (Pat) (17 March 2011)

Gedeon Richter Plc v Bayer Schering Pharma AG [2011] EWHC 583 (Pat) (17 March 2011)

The patents are not invalid for added matter except in relation to the 3mg loading point, which is addressed by conditional amendment. The patents are not obvious over the cited prior art. The claims, properly construed, do not exclude enteric coated formulations if they satisfy the dissolution test. All other added matter and obviousness attacks fail.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 583 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Gedeon Richter plc; Defendant: Bayer Schering Pharma AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation Action / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Patents held valid subject to amendment; revocation refused.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Added Matter, Pharmaceutical Patents, Claim Construction
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Obviousness Added Matter Pharmaceutical Patents Claim Construction

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gedeon Richter plc

Claimant

Bayer Schering Pharma AG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation Action / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether European Patent (UK) Nos. 1,380,301 and 1,598,069 are invalid for obviousness over prior art
  2. 2 Whether the patents contain added matter beyond the parent application
  3. 3 Proper construction of the claims regarding enteric coated formulations

Ratio Decidendi

The patents are not invalid for added matter except in relation to the 3mg loading point, which is addressed by conditional amendment. The patents are not obvious over the cited prior art. The claims, properly construed, do not exclude enteric coated formulations if they satisfy the dissolution test. All other added matter and obviousness attacks fail.

Court Disposition

Patents held valid subject to amendment; revocation refused.

Orders

  • Unconditional and conditional amendments to the patents allowed as specified.
  • All other claims for revocation dismissed.