Generics (UK) Ltd & Ors v H Lundbeck A/S [2007] EWHC 1040 (Pat) (04 May 2007)

Generics (UK) Ltd & Ors v H Lundbeck A/S [2007] EWHC 1040 (Pat) (04 May 2007)

Claims 1 and 3 are not anticipated by the prior art because the claims, properly construed, are limited to the isolated (+) enantiomer and do not cover the racemate disclosed in the cited patents. The inventive concept of the patent is not obvious in light of the prior art and common general knowledge, as the methods for resolving citalopram into its enantiomers and the identification of the (+) enantiomer as the active antidepressant were not obvious to the skilled team at the priority date. The patent is sufficiently disclosed for the skilled addressee to perform the invention.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1040 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Generics (UK) Limited; Claimant: Arrow Generics Limited; Claimant: Teva UK Limited and Teva Pharmaceuticals Limited; Defendant: H. Lundbeck A/S
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claims upheld; patent not revoked.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Novelty, Sufficiency, Pharmaceutical Patents, Enantiomers, Antidepressant Drugs
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Obviousness Novelty Sufficiency Pharmaceutical Patents Enantiomers +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Generics (UK) Limited

Claimant

Arrow Generics Limited

Claimant

Teva UK Limited and Teva Pharmaceuticals Limited

Claimant

H. Lundbeck A/S

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims 1 and 3 of European Patent (UK) No 0,347,066 are anticipated by prior art (lack novelty)
  2. 2 Whether claims 1, 3, and 6 are invalid for obviousness
  3. 3 Whether claims 1 and 3 are invalid for insufficiency

Ratio Decidendi

Claims 1 and 3 are not anticipated by the prior art because the claims, properly construed, are limited to the isolated (+) enantiomer and do not cover the racemate disclosed in the cited patents. The inventive concept of the patent is not obvious in light of the prior art and common general knowledge, as the methods for resolving citalopram into its enantiomers and the identification of the (+) enantiomer as the active antidepressant were not obvious to the skilled team at the priority date. The patent is sufficiently disclosed for the skilled addressee to perform the invention.

Court Disposition

Claims upheld; patent not revoked.

Orders

  • The claims of European Patent (UK) No 0,347,066 are valid and not anticipated or obvious.
  • Lundbeck's conditional application to amend is unnecessary.