- Roche Diabetes Care succeeds in UK Medtech patent dispute against Insulet (Insulet v Roche Diabetes Care)
- Factual background
- Do regulatory concerns count as ‘Technical’ or ‘Commercial’ constraints within the skilled person’s mindset?
- Direct infringement, infringement by equivalence, and indirect infringement
- Direct infringement
- Infringement by equivalence
- Indirect infringement
- Disclosure in the Patent specification versus the scope of protection in the Claims
- The STS
- Case details
Life Sciences analysis: Rafi Allos, senior associate, and Kristjan Bloudoff, associate, of Allen & Overy LLP discuss the latest UK medical technology (UK Medtech) patent decision in which the High Court held that Roche Diabetes Care’s Accu-Chek Solo insulin pump did not infringe Insulet’s patent (either directly, indirectly, or by way of equivalence), and that the patent was invalid. Notably, the court held that both technical and commercial regulatory considerations can form part of the objective mindset of the skilled person or team when designing a medical device. The court also held that narrowing the disclosure in the patent specification by reference to the claims or a perceived commercial failing of the invention would be wrong, and that both the result and the means used to achieve the invention were all part of the inventive concept to be considered in the test for infringement by equivalence as set out in Actavis v Eli Lilly. This case also provides consideration of patent claim construction and interpretation following a review of the relevant legal principles, and an insight into the Shorter Trials Scheme (STS).
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial