Actavis Group PTC EHF & Anor v Eli Lilly and Company

Actavis Group PTC EHF & Anor v Eli Lilly and Company

The patent is valid because neither Chouinard nor Zerbe made it obvious to try atomoxetine for ADHD, nor gave a fair expectation of success; the patent's disclosure is plausible and credible, supported by post-published evidence, and sufficiency is satisfied. There is no squeeze between inventive step and plausibility.

Parties
Claimant: Actavis Group PTC ehf; Claimant: Actavis UK Limited; Defendant: Eli Lilly and Company
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Infringement / Judgment After Expedited Trial
Outcome
Claim for revocation dismissed; counterclaim for threatened infringement succeeds.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Sufficiency, Plausibility, Second Medical Use Claims, Priority Entitlement
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Obviousness Sufficiency Plausibility Second Medical Use Claims Priority Entitlement

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

Parties

Actavis Group PTC ehf

Claimant

Actavis UK Limited

Claimant

Eli Lilly and Company

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Infringement / Judgment After Expedited Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether EP (UK) 0 721 777 is invalid for lack of inventive step
  2. 2 Whether the patent is insufficient due to lack of plausibility
  3. 3 Whether the patent loses priority entitlement

Ratio Decidendi

The patent is valid because neither Chouinard nor Zerbe made it obvious to try atomoxetine for ADHD, nor gave a fair expectation of success; the patent's disclosure is plausible and credible, supported by post-published evidence, and sufficiency is satisfied. There is no squeeze between inventive step and plausibility.

Court Disposition

Claim for revocation dismissed; counterclaim for threatened infringement succeeds.

Orders

  • Patent EP (UK) 0 721 777 is valid.
  • Actavis' claim for revocation is dismissed.