Novartis AG & Ors v Focus Pharmaceuticals Ltd & Ors

Novartis AG & Ors v Focus Pharmaceuticals Ltd & Ors

The patent is invalid for added matter because it presents the skilled team with information about the invention not directly and unambiguously derivable from the application, specifically the selection of a particular starting dose for rivastigmine administered via a TTS, and the use of that dose irrespective of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Novartis AG; Claimant: LTS Lohmann Therapie-Systeme AG; Claimant: Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited; Defendant: Focus Pharmaceuticals Limited; Defendant: Actavis Group PTC EHF; Defendant: Actavis UK Limited; Defendant: Teva UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation / Final Judgment
Outcome
Patent declared invalid for added matter and lack of inventive step; no relief granted to claimants.
Legal Topics
Added Matter, Obviousness, Insufficiency, Infringement, Pharmaceutical Patents, Patent Construction
Intellectual Property Patents Added Matter Obviousness Insufficiency Infringement Pharmaceutical Patents Patent Construction

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Novartis AG

Claimant

LTS Lohmann Therapie-Systeme AG

Claimant

Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited

Claimant

Focus Pharmaceuticals Limited

Defendant

Actavis Group PTC EHF

Defendant

Actavis UK Limited

Defendant

Teva UK Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether European Patent (UK) No. 2 292 219 is invalid for added matter
  2. 2 Whether the patent lacks inventive step (obviousness) over prior art US031
  3. 3 Whether the patent is insufficient

Ratio Decidendi

The patent is invalid for added matter because it presents the skilled team with information about the invention not directly and unambiguously derivable from the application, specifically the selection of a particular starting dose for rivastigmine administered via a TTS, and the use of that dose irrespective of TTS structure. The patent also lacks inventive step over US031, as it would have been obvious to try the claimed starting dose in a clinical trial. Insufficiency was not established. If valid, the defendants' patches would infringe.

Court Disposition

Patent declared invalid for added matter and lack of inventive step; no relief granted to claimants.