Mayne Pharma (USA) Inc & Anor v Teva UK Ltd & Anor, Court of Appeal - Patents Court, October 12, 2005, [2005] EWHC 2141 (Pat)

Extract

---

Mayne Pharma (USA) Inc & Anor v Teva UK Ltd & Anor, Court of Appeal - Patents Court, October 12, 2005, [2005] EWHC 2141 (Pat)

Case No: HC04 C03755

Neutral Citation Number: [2005] EWHC 2141 (Pat)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 12 October 2005

Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PUMFREY

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Daniel Alexander QC and Thomas Mitcheson (instructed by S J Berwin) for the Claimants

Michael Silverleaf QC and Michael Tappin (instructed by Addleshaw Goddard) for the Defendants

Hearing dates: 13-18 April 2005

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment

Mr Justice Pumfrey :

Introduction

1. This is an action for the infringement of European Patent (UK) 0 835 657. The patent stands in the name of Mayne Pharma (USA) Inc, the First Claimant. The Second Claimant is a licensee in respect of the patent in the United Kingdom, and the Third Claimant is the parent company of the Second Claimant. It is not clear to me what, if any, causes of action are owned by the Second and Third Claimants, but in any event it is unnecessary to distinguish between the Claimants, to whom I shall refer as ``Mayne''. The First Defendant, Teva UK Limited, is a generic pharmaceutical company which admits the importation, disposal, and keeping of the allegedly infringing material in the United Kingdom. The Second Defendant denied all acts of infringement, and played no separate part in the trial. I shall refer to the Defendants as ``Teva'' for convenience, it being recalled that there is, as far as I can see, no evidence in respect of the activities of the Second Defendant.

2. Teva deny infringement, and allege that the patent is invalid upon two principal grounds: obviousness over the common general knowledge in the art, and obviousness in the light of a particular publication referred to at trial as ``Richheimer''. Mayne sought to answer the allegation of obviousness in the light of the common general knowledge by adducing evidence from Dr Robyn Elliott, who was closely involved in the events leading up to the making of the invention. Her evidence was in the end relied upon by Teva as reinforcing their argument on obviousness. Finally, Teva bolstered their case for non-infringement by employin...

See the full content of this document

---