Teva UK Ltd & Anor v Leo Pharma A/s [2014] EWHC 3096 (Pat) (06 October 2014)

Teva UK Ltd & Anor v Leo Pharma A/s [2014] EWHC 3096 (Pat) (06 October 2014)

Both patents are invalid for lack of inventive step because, at the priority date, it was obvious to the skilled team to develop a non-aqueous ointment formulation comprising calcipotriol, betamethasone, and polyoxypropylene-15-stearyl ether as a solvent, based on the common general knowledge and the teaching of the Turi patent. The technical steps required were routine, and regulatory concerns did not outweigh the technical motivation to try the claimed formulation.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3096 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: TEVA UK LIMITED; Claimant: TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED; Defendant: LEO PHARMA A/S; Third Party: LEO LABORATORIES LIMITED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Patents declared invalid for lack of inventive step (obviousness)
Legal Topics
Obviousness, Inventive Step, Insufficiency, Added Matter, Infringement, Pharmaceutical Patents
Intellectual Property Patents Obviousness Inventive Step Insufficiency Added Matter Infringement Pharmaceutical Patents

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TEVA UK LIMITED

Claimant

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Claimant

LEO PHARMA A/S

Defendant

LEO LABORATORIES LIMITED

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patents EP 1 178 808 and EP 2 455 083 are invalid for lack of inventive step (obviousness)
  2. 2 Whether the patents are invalid for insufficiency or added matter
  3. 3 Whether TEVA's proposed product would infringe the patents if valid

Ratio Decidendi

Both patents are invalid for lack of inventive step because, at the priority date, it was obvious to the skilled team to develop a non-aqueous ointment formulation comprising calcipotriol, betamethasone, and polyoxypropylene-15-stearyl ether as a solvent, based on the common general knowledge and the teaching of the Turi patent. The technical steps required were routine, and regulatory concerns did not outweigh the technical motivation to try the claimed formulation.

Court Disposition

Patents declared invalid for lack of inventive step (obviousness)

Orders

  • Both EP 1 178 808 and EP 2 455 083 patents are declared invalid.
  • No order on insufficiency or added matter as independent grounds.