Cipla Ltd. & Ors v Glaxo Group Ltd. [2004] EWHC 477 (Pat) (19 March 2004)

Cipla Ltd. & Ors v Glaxo Group Ltd. [2004] EWHC 477 (Pat) (19 March 2004)

The patent is invalid for obviousness. At the priority date, the combination of a long-acting β2-agonist (salmeterol) and an inhaled steroid (fluticasone propionate) for simultaneous administration in an inhaler was obvious to the skilled person in light of the prior art (including Ventide and relevant publications) and the common general knowledge. There was no sufficiently general technical prejudice in the art to render the claimed combination inventive.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 477 (Pat)
Parties
Claimants: Cipla Limited and others; Defendant: Glaxo Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation Action / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Patent revoked for lack of inventive step (obviousness).
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Inventive Step, Pharmaceutical Patents, Combination Therapy
Intellectual Property Law Patent Law Patent Validity Obviousness Inventive Step Pharmaceutical Patents Combination Therapy

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 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cipla Limited and others

Claimants

Glaxo Group Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation Action / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether UK patent 2 235 627 is invalid for obviousness over the prior art and common general knowledge at the priority date.

Ratio Decidendi

The patent is invalid for obviousness. At the priority date, the combination of a long-acting β2-agonist (salmeterol) and an inhaled steroid (fluticasone propionate) for simultaneous administration in an inhaler was obvious to the skilled person in light of the prior art (including Ventide and relevant publications) and the common general knowledge. There was no sufficiently general technical prejudice in the art to render the claimed combination inventive.

Court Disposition

Patent revoked for lack of inventive step (obviousness).

Orders

  • UK patent 2 235 627 is revoked.