Les Laboratoires Servier & Anor v Apotex Inc & Ors

Les Laboratoires Servier & Anor v Apotex Inc & Ors

The patent was invalid for lack of novelty and obviousness because the claimed α crystalline form was the inevitable and obvious result of the process disclosed in EP 0 380 341. The cooling regime was an obvious implementation, and the patent did not provide a sufficient technical contribution. The evidence overwhelmingly showed that the claimed product was not novel over the prior art.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Les Laboratoires Servier; Claimant/appellant: Servier Laboratories Limited; Defendant/respondent: Apotex Inc; Defendant/respondent: Apotex Pharmachem Inc; Defendant/respondent: Apotex Europe Limited; Defendant/respondent: Apotex UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patent) / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Novelty, Obviousness, Sufficiency, Patent Validity, Pharmaceutical Patents
Intellectual Property Patents Novelty Obviousness Sufficiency Patent Validity 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Les Laboratoires Servier

Claimant/appellant

Servier Laboratories Limited

Claimant/appellant

Apotex Inc

Defendant/respondent

Apotex Pharmachem Inc

Defendant/respondent

Apotex Europe Limited

Defendant/respondent

Apotex UK Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (patent) / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Servier’s EP (UK) 1 296 947 patent is invalid for lack of novelty and/or obviousness
  2. 2 Whether the process and product claims are anticipated by prior art (EP 0 380 341)
  3. 3 Whether the patent specification is sufficient under Art. 83 EPC

Ratio Decidendi

The patent was invalid for lack of novelty and obviousness because the claimed α crystalline form was the inevitable and obvious result of the process disclosed in EP 0 380 341. The cooling regime was an obvious implementation, and the patent did not provide a sufficient technical contribution. The evidence overwhelmingly showed that the claimed product was not novel over the prior art.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Patent held invalid for lack of novelty and obviousness