13 July 2017
London
Reporter: Mark Dugdale

UK Supreme Court tweaks equivalent infringement


The UK Supreme Court’s ruling in Actavis v Eli Lilly put more emphasis on considering the invention in the patent when assessing whether a competitor infringes, according to Hogan Lovells.

The decision also brought UK law more closely into line with the law in other key European countries, said Emma Fulton, one of the Hogan Lovells lawyers representing Eli Lilly in the litigation, following the release of the UK’s full judgement yesterday.

The UK Supreme Court upheld the validity of and adjudged as infringed Eli Lilly’s vitamin regimen patent for Alimta earlier this week.

With the launch of a generic version of Alimta, Teva Pharmaceuticals-owned Actavis would also, in the absence of direct infringement, indirectly infringe Eli Lilly’s patent for the the safe and efficacious use of a cancer drug, pemetrexed, in co-therapy with vitamin B12.

“Although the case arose in the context of pharmaceutical technology, it applies across the range of patented technologies,” explained Stephen Bennett, a Hogan Lovells partner who worked on the case. “This is good news for patent owners who want to catch infringers that make small changes to their products to try to avoid infringement.”

In updating the test for equivalent infringement, the UK Supreme Court reformulated the 1990 Improver Corporation v Remington Consumer questions to make it clear that the informed/skilled person knows that the variant works (to the extent that it actually does work) when they are considering whether it would be obvious that the variant achieves the same result in the same way, according to Hogan Lovells.

The questions that courts will now consider when looking at variants are:

  • Does the variant achieve substantially the same result in substantially the same way as the invention, ie, the inventive concept revealed by the patent?

  • Would it be obvious to an informed reader, knowing that the variant achieves substantially the same result as the invention, that it does so in substantially the same way as the invention?

  • Would such a reader of the patent have concluded that the patent owner nonetheless intended that strict compliance with the literal meaning of the relevant claim(s) of the patent was an essential requirement of the invention?

    Dan Brook of Hogan Lovells said: “Importantly, the decision makes it clear that assessing the scope of protection of a patent is a two stage process: first work out what the patent claim means; and then consider whether any variant infringes by equivalence.”

  • More news
    The latest news from IPPro Patents
    Join Our Newsletter

    Sign up today and never
    miss the latest news or an issue again

    Subscribe now
    Baker Botts promotes three in IP
    21 November 2017 | Texas | Reporter: Barney Dixon
    Baker Botts has promoted three intellectual property attorneys to partner, as part of a round of 11 partner promotions
    Alibaba in ITC spotlight
    20 November 2017 | Washington DC | Reporter: Barney Dixon
    Alibaba will be investigated by the US International Trade Commission over the importation and sale of insulated beverage containers, their labels, and packaging materials
    MediaTek partners with Anaqua
    20 November 2017 | Boston | Reporter: Barney Dixon
    Taiwanese semiconductor company MediaTek has selected Anaqua to manage its intellectual property activities, including its inventions and patents
    Brazil and China sign PPH agreement
    17 November 2017 | Beijing | Reporter: Barney Dixon
    The State Intellectual Property Office of China has signed a patent prosecution highway agreement with the Brazilian National Institution of Intellectual Property
    Cozen O’Connor hires ex-DLA Piper litigator
    17 November 2017 | Washington DC | Reporter: Barney Dixon
    Cozen O’Connor has hired ex-DLA Piper litigator Hugh Marbury as member in its intellectual property department
    Mewburn Ellis opens Munich office
    16 November 2017 | Munich | Reporter: Barney Dixon
    Intellectual property boutique Mewburn Ellis has opened a new office in Munich, its first expansion outside of the UK
    EPO faces backlash over scrapping of permanent employment contracts
    15 November 2017 | Munich | Reporter: Barney Dixon
    In an internal memo, the Staff Union of the European Patent Office described the move as “Kafkaesque”