Leo Pharma (a/s Leo Laboratories Ltd) v Sandoz Ltd

Leo Pharma (a/s Leo Laboratories Ltd) v Sandoz Ltd

The patent is not invalid for lack of novelty or obviousness. The prior art does not inevitably produce the patented monohydrate, and it is not obvious that routine or regulatory-driven experiments would uncover or use the monohydrate. The formation of the monohydrate is unpredictable and not guaranteed by the processes disclosed in the prior art. The skilled team would not have a fair expectation of success in finding the monohydrate through the suggested programmes of work.

Parties
Claimant: LEO PHARMA A/S; Claimant: LEO LABORATORIES LIMITED; Defendant: SANDOZ LIMITED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Infringement / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim for validity of the patent succeeds; counterclaim for revocation dismissed.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Novelty, Obviousness, Pharmaceutical Patents
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Novelty Obviousness 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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LEO PHARMA A/S

Claimant

LEO LABORATORIES LIMITED

Claimant

SANDOZ LIMITED

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Infringement / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether European Patent (UK) No. 0 679 154 is invalid for lack of novelty or obviousness
  2. 2 Whether the patent is anticipated by WO 91/12807
  3. 3 Whether the patent is obvious in light of prior art and common general knowledge

Ratio Decidendi

The patent is not invalid for lack of novelty or obviousness. The prior art does not inevitably produce the patented monohydrate, and it is not obvious that routine or regulatory-driven experiments would uncover or use the monohydrate. The formation of the monohydrate is unpredictable and not guaranteed by the processes disclosed in the prior art. The skilled team would not have a fair expectation of success in finding the monohydrate through the suggested programmes of work.

Court Disposition

Claim for validity of the patent succeeds; counterclaim for revocation dismissed.

Orders

  • No claim of the Leo patent is invalid.
  • The action succeeds and the counterclaim is dismissed.