Actavis UK Ltd. v Merck & Co. Inc Rev 1 [2007] EWHC 1311 (Pat) (06 June 2007)
The patent claims are invalid for lack of novelty because the therapeutic application (treatment of androgenic alopecia with finasteride) was disclosed in prior art, and the only difference is the dosing regimen, which cannot confer novelty under binding authority. Even if the claims were novel, they would be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] EWHC 1311 (Pat)
- Parties
- Claimant: Actavis UK Limited; Defendant: Merck & Co. Inc.
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 06 June 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Patent Revocation Action / First Instance Judgment
- Outcome
- Patent revoked
- Legal Topics
- Patent Validity, Second Medical Use Claims, Obviousness, Novelty, Swiss Type Claims
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Actavis UK Limited
Claimant
Merck & Co. Inc.
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation Action / First Instance Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the patent for the use of low-dose finasteride for androgenic alopecia is novel over prior art
- 2 Whether the patent involves an inventive step (obviousness)
- 3 Whether the claims are invalid as methods of medical treatment under UK and EPC law
Ratio Decidendi
The patent claims are invalid for lack of novelty because the therapeutic application (treatment of androgenic alopecia with finasteride) was disclosed in prior art, and the only difference is the dosing regimen, which cannot confer novelty under binding authority. Even if the claims were novel, they would be obvious in light of the prior art and common general knowledge at the priority date.
Court Disposition
Patent revoked
Orders
- European Patent (UK) 0724 444 is revoked for lack of novelty and obviousness.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment