Generics (UK) Ltd & Ors v H Lundbeck A/S

Generics (UK) Ltd & Ors v H Lundbeck A/S

Claims 1 and 3 of the patent are invalid for insufficiency because they claim an obvious goal (the (+) enantiomer of citalopram) without limiting the monopoly to the technical contribution made by Lundbeck, which was the method of resolving the diol intermediate. Claim 6 is valid as it is limited to the inventive method disclosed.

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 / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claims 1 and 3 invalid for insufficiency; claim 6 valid.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Novelty, Insufficiency, Commercial Success, Regulatory Requirements, Stereochemistry, Pharmaceutical Compositions
Intellectual Property Pharmaceutical Law Patent Validity Obviousness Novelty Insufficiency Commercial Success Regulatory Requirements +2 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
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 / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are claims 1 and 3 of European Patent (UK) No 0,347,066 invalid for insufficiency?
  2. 2 Are claims 1 and 3 invalid for obviousness or lack of novelty?
  3. 3 Is claim 6 valid?

Ratio Decidendi

Claims 1 and 3 of the patent are invalid for insufficiency because they claim an obvious goal (the (+) enantiomer of citalopram) without limiting the monopoly to the technical contribution made by Lundbeck, which was the method of resolving the diol intermediate. Claim 6 is valid as it is limited to the inventive method disclosed.

Court Disposition

Claims 1 and 3 invalid for insufficiency; claim 6 valid.

Orders

  • Claims 1 and 3 of European Patent (UK) No 0,347,066 are revoked for insufficiency.
  • Claim 6 is upheld as valid.