Alcon Research LLC & Anor v Pharmathen SA & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 845 (28 June 2022)

Alcon Research LLC & Anor v Pharmathen SA & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 845 (28 June 2022)

The patent was not obvious because the skilled team would not, without invention, turn to fluprostenol as a treatment for glaucoma based on Stjernschantz; the patent was not insufficient as it plausibly disclosed reduced hyperemia, and irritation was not required for plausibility under the pleaded case.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Civ 845
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Alcon Research LLC; Claimant/respondent: Alcon Pharmaceuticals Limited; Defendant: Pharmathen SA; Defendant/appellant: Aspire Pharma Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Obviousness, Insufficiency, Second Medical Use Claims, Pharmaceutical Patents
Intellectual Property Patent Law Obviousness Insufficiency Second Medical Use Claims Pharmaceutical Patents

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alcon Research LLC

Claimant/respondent

Alcon Pharmaceuticals Limited

Claimant/respondent

Pharmathen SA

Defendant

Aspire Pharma Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patent was obvious in light of prior art (Stjernschantz)
  2. 2 Whether the patent was insufficient due to lack of plausible disclosure
  3. 3 Interpretation of 'suitable for use in the treatment of glaucoma'

Ratio Decidendi

The patent was not obvious because the skilled team would not, without invention, turn to fluprostenol as a treatment for glaucoma based on Stjernschantz; the patent was not insufficient as it plausibly disclosed reduced hyperemia, and irritation was not required for plausibility under the pleaded case.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Patent validity upheld
  • No relief granted to appellant