Table of contents
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Article summary
IP analysis: The Court of Appeal has rejected two appeals (heard together) made by Teva and Sandoz (the ‘Appellants’) against the order of Mr Justice Meade at first instance dismissing their claim for revocation of EP(UK) 1 559 427 (the ‘Patent’) covering the use of Mirabegron for the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB), and SPC/GB13/035 and granting the patentee Astellas (the ‘Respondent’) relief for patent infringement. The Appellants submitted that the judge had not correctly applied the case law as set out in Conor Medsystems v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals and Pozzoli v BDMO, and Koninklijke Philips v Asustek Computer. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that there was no error of approach in the first instance decision and that there was no basis for the Court of Appeal to interfere with the judge’s ruling. Written by Geoff Hussey, partner & Fergus Brown, associate at AA Thornton IP LLP.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial