Scinopharm Taiwan Ltd v Eli Lilly & Company
The patent is not obvious over the cited prior art because the skilled person would not have found it obvious to pursue an SN2 pathway for β anomer enrichment in light of Chou and Hertel, given the teaching and common general knowledge. The patent is sufficiently disclosed as it provides enough examples and guidance for the skilled person to perform the invention.
- Parties
- Claimant: Scinopharm Taiwan Limited; Defendant: Eli Lilly & Company
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 27 March 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Patent Revocation Action / Judgment After Trial
- Outcome
- Claim dismissed; patent held valid
- Legal Topics
- Obviousness, Sufficiency, Pharmaceutical Patents, Process Patents
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Scinopharm Taiwan Limited
Claimant
Eli Lilly & Company
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation Action / Judgment After Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the patent is obvious over the prior art
- 2 Whether the patent is insufficiently disclosed
Ratio Decidendi
The patent is not obvious over the cited prior art because the skilled person would not have found it obvious to pursue an SN2 pathway for β anomer enrichment in light of Chou and Hertel, given the teaching and common general knowledge. The patent is sufficiently disclosed as it provides enough examples and guidance for the skilled person to perform the invention.
Court Disposition
Claim dismissed; patent held valid
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment