Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) & Anor v Yeda Research And Development Company Ltd

Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) & Anor v Yeda Research And Development Company Ltd

Claims 1 and 3 of the patent are obvious over Pinchasi and therefore invalid; if claim 3 were not obvious, it would lack plausibility and be invalid for insufficiency and lack of inventive step; Arrow declaration is not appropriate as the judgment provides sufficient commercial certainty.

Parties
Claimant: Generics (U.K.) Limited trading as Mylan; Claimant: Synthon BV; Defendant: Yeda Research and Development Company Limited; Third Party: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Party Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Declaration Proceedings / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claims 1 and 3 of European Patent (UK) No. 2 949 335 are invalid for obviousness; Arrow declaration refused.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Novelty, Insufficiency, Arrow Declaration, Pharmaceutical Patents
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Obviousness Novelty Insufficiency Arrow Declaration 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Generics (U.K.) Limited trading as Mylan

Claimant

Synthon BV

Claimant

Yeda Research and Development Company Limited

Defendant

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Party Limited

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Declaration Proceedings / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims 1 and 3 of European Patent (UK) No. 2 949 335 are novel and/or obvious over prior art (Pinchasi, Caon, Flechter)
  2. 2 Whether the patent is insufficient for lack of plausibility or technical contribution
  3. 3 Whether an Arrow declaration should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Claims 1 and 3 of the patent are obvious over Pinchasi and therefore invalid; if claim 3 were not obvious, it would lack plausibility and be invalid for insufficiency and lack of inventive step; Arrow declaration is not appropriate as the judgment provides sufficient commercial certainty.

Court Disposition

Claims 1 and 3 of European Patent (UK) No. 2 949 335 are invalid for obviousness; Arrow declaration refused.

Orders

  • Patent revoked as to claims 1 and 3 for lack of inventive step
  • Arrow declaration not granted