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
    Ex-Oblon attorneys start own patent firm
    22 September 2017 | Virginia | Reporter: Barney Dixon
    Ex-Oblon attorneys Kirsten Grüneberg and Eric Myers have launched their own patent boutique law firm in Virginia
    Red Hat expands Patent Promise
    22 September 2017 | Raleigh | Reporter: Barney Dixon
    Open-source software provider Red Hat has revised its Patent Promise, which was initially intended to discourage patent aggression against free and open-source software
    Google and HTC sign $1.1 billion deal
    21 September 2017 | California | Reporter: Barney Dixon
    Google and HTC have signed a $1.1 billion agreement that will net Google a portion of HTC’s smartphone research and development team and a separate non-exclusive intellectual property license
    IP Awareness Summit to be held in November
    20 September 2017 | Chicago | Reporter: Barney Dixon
    The Centre for Intellectual Property Understanding, alongside the Chicago-Kent College of Law, will be holding the first Intellectual Property Awareness Summit in Chicago on 6 November
    Motorola wins direct infringement challenge
    20 September 2017 | Washington DC | Reporter: Barney Dixon
    Motorola has won its direct patent infringement appeal against Intellectual Ventures, but failed to secure an invalidity ruling
    Dali and Fiplex settle down
    19 September 2017 | California | Reporter: Barney Dixon
    Dali Wireless has settled with Fiplex Communications over patents for its Public Safety distributed antenna systems (DAS) products
    Nokia and LG complete arbitration
    18 September 2017 | Espoo | Reporter: Barney Dixon
    Nokia and LG Electronics have finally settled their patent licence dispute at the International Court of Arbitration