Your Subscription

We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.





Login
Twitter LinkedIn




Login
  • Home
  • About
  • Updates
  • Awards
  • Contact
  • Directory
  • OnDemand
  • Partners
  • Testimonials
Forward Share Print
Taylor Wessing

Supreme Court rules on pregabalin patent

Newsletters

03 December 2018

Intellectual Property United Kingdom


The UK Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in the Warner-Lambert v Generics (UK) (Mylan) case concerning the validity and infringement of a patent claiming the use of pregabalin for the treatment of neuropathic pain: the patent is held invalid. If the patent had been valid it would not have been infringed.

The key issues the Court had to resolve were the tests for infringement of a second medical use claim and the test for plausibility of a claim such that it is sufficient:

  • On infringement of second medical use claims, Lords Hodge and Briggs consider it necessary to show the intention of the manufacturer to infringe, Lords Sumption and Reed consider that the intention of the infringer is irrelevant and that the sole criteria of infringement is whether the product as it emerges from the manufacturing process, including any labelling or accompanying leaflet, is presented as suitable for the uses which enjoy patent protection. Lord Mance followed the latter view, with some qualifications. According to both tests, Lecaent did not infringe the patent.
  • On plausibility Lord Sumption (giving the leading majority judgment) states that "the specification must disclose some reason for supposing that the implied assertion of efficacy in the claim is true. Plausibility is not a distinct condition of validity with a life of its own, but a standard against which that must be demonstrated. Its adoption is a mitigation of the principle in favour of patentability. It reflects the practical difficulty of demonstrating therapeutic efficacy to any higher standard at the stage when the patent application must in practice be made. The test is relatively undemanding." Lords Hodge and Mance, dissenting, thought the standard was lower and were in agreement with the lower courts. On the facts, the Court upheld the lower courts' decision that the patent did not plausibly support the treatment of central neuropathic pain and, by majority, that it also did not plausibly support peripheral neuropathic pain, therefore allowing Mylan and Actavis's cross-appeal.

For further information on this topic please contact Matthew Royle or Paul England at Taylor Wessing by telephone (+44 20 7300 7000) or email (m.royle@taylorwessing.com or p.england@taylorwessing.com). The Taylor Wessing website can be accessed at​www.taylorwessing.com.

This article has been reproduced in its original format from Lexology – www.Lexology.com.

The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.

ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.

Forward Share Print

Authors

Matthew Royle

Matthew Royle

Paul England

Paul England

Register now for your free newsletter

View recent newsletter

More from this firm

  • Letter marks considered by UKIPO: M-phatically dissimilar marks
  • New Brexit IP regulation sets out effect of EU cancellation on comparable UK rights
  • Security over intellectual property
  • IP licensing and insolvency reform: ipso facto clauses
  • IPEC considers trademark infringement and passing off in pet food dispute

More articles

  • Home
  • About
  • Updates
  • Awards
  • Contact
  • My account
  • Directory
  • OnDemand
  • Partners
  • Testimonials
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Follow on LinkedIn
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
  • GDPR Compliance
  • Terms
  • Cookie policy
Online Media Partners
Inter-Pacific Bar Association (IPBA) International Bar Association (IBA) European Company Lawyers Association (ECLA) Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) American Bar Association Section of International Law (ABA)

© 1997-2021 Law Business Research

You need to be logged in to make a comment. Log in here.
Many thanks. Your comment has been sent.

Your details



Your comment or question *