Intervet UK Ltd v Merial R.'s University of Belfast the University of Saskatchewan [2010] EWHC 294 (Pat) (23 February 2010)

Intervet UK Ltd v Merial R.'s University of Belfast the University of Saskatchewan [2010] EWHC 294 (Pat) (23 February 2010)

The patent is not entitled to the earliest priority date because the priority document does not clearly and unambiguously disclose the invention as claimed. Consequently, the patent is invalid over intervening prior art. Even if entitled to the priority date, the claims are obvious in light of Nayar. The proposed amendments do not cure the priority defect or render the claims non-obvious. There is no infringement because the claims are invalid.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 294 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Intervet UK Limited; Defendant: Merial; Defendant: The Queen's University of Belfast; Defendant: The University of Saskatchewan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Patent revoked; claim for infringement dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Patent Infringement, Priority Date, Obviousness, Insufficiency, Amendment of Claims, Diagnostic Methods, Biotechnology Patents
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Patent Infringement Priority Date Obviousness Insufficiency Amendment of Claims +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Intervet UK Limited

Claimant

Merial

Defendant

The Queen's University of Belfast

Defendant

The University of Saskatchewan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patent is entitled to the claimed priority date
  2. 2 Whether the patent is invalid for obviousness over prior art (Nayar)
  3. 3 Whether the patent is insufficient

Ratio Decidendi

The patent is not entitled to the earliest priority date because the priority document does not clearly and unambiguously disclose the invention as claimed. Consequently, the patent is invalid over intervening prior art. Even if entitled to the priority date, the claims are obvious in light of Nayar. The proposed amendments do not cure the priority defect or render the claims non-obvious. There is no infringement because the claims are invalid.

Court Disposition

Patent revoked; claim for infringement dismissed

Orders

  • Patent EP (UK) No. 1 386 617 is revoked.
  • Claim for infringement by Intervet is dismissed.