Scinopharm Taiwan Ltd v Eli Lilly & Company [2009] EWHC 631 (Pat) (27 March 2009)
The patent was found to be obvious in light of the prior art, particularly the Chou and Hertel publications, when read together as would have been obvious for the skilled person. The process claimed did not involve an inventive step beyond what was already disclosed or obvious to try, and thus the patent was invalid for obviousness. The insufficiency ground was not made out.
- Citation
- [2009] EWHC 631 (Pat)
- Parties
- Claimant: Scinopharm Taiwan Limited; Defendant: Eli Lilly & Company
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 27 March 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Patent Revocation Action / First Instance Judgment
- Outcome
- Patent revoked for obviousness
- Legal Topics
- Patent Validity, 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 / First Instance Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether EP (UK) No 0,577,303 is invalid for obviousness
- 2 Whether the patent is insufficient
Ratio Decidendi
The patent was found to be obvious in light of the prior art, particularly the Chou and Hertel publications, when read together as would have been obvious for the skilled person. The process claimed did not involve an inventive step beyond what was already disclosed or obvious to try, and thus the patent was invalid for obviousness. The insufficiency ground was not made out.
Court Disposition
Patent revoked for obviousness
Orders
- EP (UK) No 0,577,303 is revoked
- No order as to costs specified in the judgment
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