Cipla Ltd. & Ors v Glaxo Group Ltd.

Cipla Ltd. & Ors v Glaxo Group Ltd.

The combination of salmeterol and fluticasone propionate in an inhaler was obvious at the priority date in light of prior art, common general knowledge, and the absence of any widespread technical prejudice; compliance issues and combination products were well known; subsequent commercial success and alleged synergy...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Cipla Limited; Claimant: Neolab Limited; Claimant: Generics (UK) Limited; Claimant: IVAX Pharmaceuticals (UK) Limited; Claimant: Arrow Generics Limited; Defendant: Glaxo Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation / Final Judgment
Outcome
patent revoked for obviousness
Legal Topics
Obviousness, Inventive Step, Pharmaceutical Patents, Combination Therapy, Compliance, Synergy
Intellectual Property Patents Obviousness Inventive Step Pharmaceutical Patents Combination Therapy Compliance Synergy

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cipla Limited

Claimant

Neolab Limited

Claimant

Generics (UK) Limited

Claimant

IVAX Pharmaceuticals (UK) Limited

Claimant

Arrow Generics Limited

Claimant

Glaxo Group Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the combination of salmeterol and fluticasone propionate in an inhaler was obvious at the priority date
  2. 2 Whether technical prejudice against regular β2-agonist therapy rendered the invention non-obvious
  3. 3 Whether evidence of synergy or commercial success could save the patent from invalidity

Ratio Decidendi

The combination of salmeterol and fluticasone propionate in an inhaler was obvious at the priority date in light of prior art, common general knowledge, and the absence of any widespread technical prejudice; compliance issues and combination products were well known; subsequent commercial success and alleged synergy did not render the invention non-obvious.

Court Disposition

patent revoked for obviousness

Orders

  • UK patent 2 235 627 revoked