Regeneron Pharmacueticals Inc v Genentech Inc [2012] EWHC 657 (Pat) (22 March 2012)

Regeneron Pharmacueticals Inc v Genentech Inc [2012] EWHC 657 (Pat) (22 March 2012)

The patent is not invalid for lack of novelty or inventive step, as the common general knowledge at the priority date did not make it obvious to use VEGF antagonists for non-neoplastic diseases characterised by undesirable excessive neovascularisation. The claims are construed to cover fragments and variants of hVEGF receptors that retain the ability to bind hVEGF and inhibit its biological activity. The patent is not insufficient. VEGF Trap Eye falls within the scope of the claims and infringes the patent.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 657 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant in HC 11 C00127: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc; Claimant in HC 11 C00131: Bayer Pharma AG; Defendant: Genentech Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Declaration of Non Infringement / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Claimants' applications for revocation and declaration of non-infringement dismissed; counterclaim for infringement succeeds.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Patent Infringement, Obviousness, Sufficiency, Construction of Patent Claims
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Patent Infringement Obviousness Sufficiency Construction of Patent Claims

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc

Claimant in HC 11 C00127

Bayer Pharma AG

Claimant in HC 11 C00131

Genentech Inc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Declaration of Non Infringement / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Genentech's European Patent (UK) No 1 238 986 is invalid for lack of novelty, inventive step, or insufficiency
  2. 2 Whether the patent is infringed by Regeneron and Bayer's VEGF Trap Eye product
  3. 3 Proper construction of the claims, particularly 'isolated hVEGF receptor' and scope of diseases covered

Ratio Decidendi

The patent is not invalid for lack of novelty or inventive step, as the common general knowledge at the priority date did not make it obvious to use VEGF antagonists for non-neoplastic diseases characterised by undesirable excessive neovascularisation. The claims are construed to cover fragments and variants of hVEGF receptors that retain the ability to bind hVEGF and inhibit its biological activity. The patent is not insufficient. VEGF Trap Eye falls within the scope of the claims and infringes the patent.

Court Disposition

Claimants' applications for revocation and declaration of non-infringement dismissed; counterclaim for infringement succeeds.

Orders

  • Patent held valid and infringed by VEGF Trap Eye.
  • Applications for revocation and declaration of non-infringement dismissed.