Merck & Co Inc v Generics (UK) Ltd [2003] EWHC 2842 (Pat) (27 November 2003)

Merck & Co Inc v Generics (UK) Ltd [2003] EWHC 2842 (Pat) (27 November 2003)

The patent claims are clear and specific, limiting protection to the use of methanesulfonic acid and the detailed process steps as claimed. The notional skilled reader cannot be reasonably confident that the patentee intended to cover sulphonic acids other than MSA or processes with materially different parameters....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 2842 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Merck & Co Inc; Defendant: Generics (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; no infringement found.
Legal Topics
Patent Construction, Infringement, Protocol on Interpretation, Purposive Construction
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Construction Infringement Protocol on Interpretation Purposive 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Merck & Co Inc

Claimant

Generics (UK) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the CIPLA process infringe Patent EP (UK) No. 0,402,152?
  2. 2 What is the proper construction of the patent claims under UK and EPC law?

Ratio Decidendi

The patent claims are clear and specific, limiting protection to the use of methanesulfonic acid and the detailed process steps as claimed. The notional skilled reader cannot be reasonably confident that the patentee intended to cover sulphonic acids other than MSA or processes with materially different parameters. The CIPLA process does not infringe the patent as it falls outside the scope of the claims.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; no infringement found.

Orders

  • No injunction granted.
  • No declaration of infringement.