Synthon BV v Smithkline Beecham Plc [2002] EWHC 2573 (Patent) (03 December 2002)

Synthon BV v Smithkline Beecham Plc [2002] EWHC 2573 (Patent) (03 December 2002)

The Synthon application, when read as a whole, enables the skilled person to make crystalline paroxetine mesylate as claimed in SB's patent. The IR spectrum difference in Synthon's disclosure is attributable to experimental error, not a different polymorph. Both patents enable the same monomorphic crystalline form. Therefore, SB's patent lacks novelty over Synthon's prior application and is invalid under s.2(3) of the Patents Act 1977.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 2573 (Patent)
Parties
Claimant: Synthon BV; Defendant: Smithkline Beecham plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Patent Invalidity Claim / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
SB's UK patent No. 2,336,364 is held invalid for lack of novelty under s.2(3) Patents Act 1977.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Novelty, Enablement, Prior Art, Pharmaceutical Patents
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Novelty Enablement Prior Art 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Synthon BV

Claimant

Smithkline Beecham plc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Invalidity Claim / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Synthon's prior application anticipates and enables the invention claimed in SB's UK patent No. 2,336,364 under s.2(3) Patents Act 1977 (Art.54(3) EPC)
  2. 2 Whether the Synthon specification enables the skilled person to make crystalline paroxetine mesylate as claimed by SB
  3. 3 Whether the Synthon and SB patents disclose the same crystalline form (monomorph or polymorph)

Ratio Decidendi

The Synthon application, when read as a whole, enables the skilled person to make crystalline paroxetine mesylate as claimed in SB's patent. The IR spectrum difference in Synthon's disclosure is attributable to experimental error, not a different polymorph. Both patents enable the same monomorphic crystalline form. Therefore, SB's patent lacks novelty over Synthon's prior application and is invalid under s.2(3) of the Patents Act 1977.

Court Disposition

SB's UK patent No. 2,336,364 is held invalid for lack of novelty under s.2(3) Patents Act 1977.

Orders

  • Patent declared invalid
  • Costs to be determined