Ranbaxy UK Ltd & Anor v Warner-Lambert Company, Court of Appeal - Patents Court, October 12, 2005, [2005] EWHC 2142 (Patents),[2005] EWHC 2142 (Pat),[2006] FSR 14,(2006) 29(1) IPD 29005
Linked as:
Extract
Ranbaxy UK Ltd & Anor v Warner-Lambert Company, Court of Appeal - Patents Court, October 12, 2005, [2005] EWHC 2142 (Patents),[2005] EWHC 2142 (Pat),[2006] FSR 14,(2006) 29(1) IPD 29005
Neutral Citation Number: [2005] EWHC 2142 (Patents)
Case No: HC 04 C02059HC 04 C02167HC 04 C03986IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECHANCERY DIVISIONPATENTS COURTRoyal Courts of JusticeStrand, London, WC2A 2LLDate: 12 October 2005Before :THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PUMFREY- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Between :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Simon Thorley QC and Richard Meade (instructed by Bird & Bird) for Warner-LambertDavid Kitchin QC and Michael Tappin (instructed by SJ Berwin) for RanbaxyDavid Kitchin QC and Mark Chacksfield (instructed by Forsyth Simpson) for ArrowHearing dates: 18-22, 25 July 2005- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -JudgmentMr Justice Pumfrey : Introduction1. This is the judgment in two actions brought by Ranbaxy (UK) Limited (`Ranbaxy') and an action by Arrow Generics Limited (`Arrow') respectively against Warner-Lambert Company, (`Warner-Lambert'). Warner-Lambert is the owner of European Patent (UK) 0247633 ('633) and of European Patent (UK) 0409281 ('281), which are concerned with atorvastatin, a cholesterol synthesis inhibitor of great commercial importance. The calcium salt is sold under the name Lipitor.2. In action 2167 Ranbaxy seek a declaration of non-infringement in respect of '633. Both Ranbaxy (in action 2059) and Arrow (in action 3986) seek to revoke '281, which claims atorvastatin calcium. The issues in respect of '281 are common to the latter actions, and the same evidence was relied on both by Ranbaxy and by Arrow.3. So far as '633 is concerned, the issue is one of construction and easily stated. Does the claim cover the single enantiomer which might be illustrated by formula (I) of the claim, or does it only cover racemic atorvastatin, that is the mixture of two enantiomers which Ranbaxy says is denoted by formula (I) on a proper interpretation of the formula in context. This issue is raised by Ranbaxy only. After the trial but before this judgment was complete, I heard and rejected an application by Arrow to be joined as a party to the action in respect of '633.4. So far as '281, is concerned, the issues are (a) obviousness over the application for the '633 patent (the '633 Application) and (b) anticipation by Warner-Lambert's application under the PCT number WO 89/07598 (the '598 application).5. I am only concerned with claim 1 of '633 and with claims 1 and 2 of '281. If claim 1 of '633 is not infringed I understand that none of the others will be. Independent validity is only alleged in respect of claims 1 and 2 of '281.6. At the outset of the trial, I ruled that Ranbaxy could not rely upon certain documents, largely representations made to certain patent offices, in which persons acting for Warner-Lambert had made representations about the disclosure of '633 much the same as that for which Ranbaxy now contend. I excluded the documents because I considered that they were not admissible on the question of construction. '633: legal principles7. This is an application for a declaration of non-infringement, after an acknowledgment was ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
