Globes bericht: "Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. has chalked up a victory in the UK against Mylan Inc., after losing a court case in the US. The Court of Appeal for England and Wales has found in favor of Teva, upholding the validity of the asserted claims of its Copaxone patent through May 2015. The court dismissed the appeal by Mylan subsidiary Generics [UK] Ltd.
Copaxone, for the treatment of multiple sclerosis, is Teva's flagship product, and is reportedly responsible for half of the company's profits. On Friday, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of Mylan and Sandoz Inc. that Copaxone's patents were only valid until May 2014. That ruling will allow the launch of generic Copaxone in the US next year."
Lees hier meer.
England and Wales Court of Appeal, Chancery Division, Patents Court, 29 July 2013, Mylan v Teva.
Enkele overwegingen m.b.t. de problem-solution approach en post-published data:
51. The judge recorded at [343] that there was no dispute that if the patent, when read with the skilled person's common general knowledge, did not disclose enough to make it plausible that the invention solved the technical problem, then that was the end of the matter, and it was not permissible for the patentee to rely upon evidence which post-dated the patent to demonstrate the technical effect. He identified the dispute as being over a second proposition advanced by Mylan, namely whether, if the patent did make the invention plausible, it remained open to the other party to cast doubt on this by post-dated evidence. At [350], having reviewed some EPO cases and a decision of his own in Sandvik Intellectual Property AB v Kennametal [2011] EWHC 3311 (Pat), he concluded as follows:
"In my judgment, however, these decisions represent the limits to which post-dated evidence may properly be put. In short, post-dated evidence may be relied on to confirm that the disclosure in the patent either does or does not make it plausible that the invention solves the technical problem. Post-dated evidence may not be relied upon either to establish a technical effect which is not made plausible by the specification in order to rebut an allegation of obviousness or to contradict a technical effect which is made plausible by the specification in order to found an allegation of obviousness. In my view it would be bizarre if, as counsel for Mylan submitted, a patent which at the time it was applied for disclosed what everyone thought was a good...
Copaxone, for the treatment of multiple sclerosis, is Teva's flagship product, and is reportedly responsible for half of the company's profits. On Friday, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of Mylan and Sandoz Inc. that Copaxone's patents were only valid until May 2014. That ruling will allow the launch of generic Copaxone in the US next year."
Lees hier meer.
England and Wales Court of Appeal, Chancery Division, Patents Court, 29 July 2013, Mylan v Teva.
Enkele overwegingen m.b.t. de problem-solution approach en post-published data:
51. The judge recorded at [343] that there was no dispute that if the patent, when read with the skilled person's common general knowledge, did not disclose enough to make it plausible that the invention solved the technical problem, then that was the end of the matter, and it was not permissible for the patentee to rely upon evidence which post-dated the patent to demonstrate the technical effect. He identified the dispute as being over a second proposition advanced by Mylan, namely whether, if the patent did make the invention plausible, it remained open to the other party to cast doubt on this by post-dated evidence. At [350], having reviewed some EPO cases and a decision of his own in Sandvik Intellectual Property AB v Kennametal [2011] EWHC 3311 (Pat), he concluded as follows:
"In my judgment, however, these decisions represent the limits to which post-dated evidence may properly be put. In short, post-dated evidence may be relied on to confirm that the disclosure in the patent either does or does not make it plausible that the invention solves the technical problem. Post-dated evidence may not be relied upon either to establish a technical effect which is not made plausible by the specification in order to rebut an allegation of obviousness or to contradict a technical effect which is made plausible by the specification in order to found an allegation of obviousness. In my view it would be bizarre if, as counsel for Mylan submitted, a patent which at the time it was applied for disclosed what everyone thought was a good...