Sandoz AG v Biogen Ma Inc.

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtChancery Division (Patents Court)
JudgeMr Justice Mellor
Judgment Date11 October 2024
Neutral Citation[2024] EWHC 2567 (Pat)
Docket NumberCase Nos: HP-2021-000031
Between:
(1) Sandoz AG
(2) Sandoz Limited
(3) Sandoz GmbH
(4) Polpharma Biologics SA
Claimants
and
Biogen Ma Inc
Defendant
Before:

THE HON Mr Justice Mellor

Case Nos: HP-2021-000031

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)

PATENTS COURT

Rolls Building

Fetter Lane

London, EC4A 1NL

Michael Tappin KC, Kathryn Pickard and Thomas Lunt (instructed by Bristows LLP) for the Claimants

Justin Turner KC and Tom Alkin (instructed by Powell Gilbert LLP) for the Defendant

Hearing dates: 22 nd, 24 th, 27 th–30 th November, 5 th & 6 th December 2023

APPROVED JUDGMENT

This judgment was handed down remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email. It will also be released for publication on the National Archives and other websites. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be Friday 11 October 2024 at 10.30am.

THE HON Mr Justice Mellor

Mr Justice Mellor Mr Justice Mellor

INTRODUCTION

6

Outline of the issues for trial

9

Witnesses of Fact

10

Expert Witnesses

11

THE SKILLED TEAM

13

COMMON GENERAL KNOWLEDGE

13

A. The Central Nervous System

13

B. Multiple Sclerosis

14

Pathology

14

Types of MS

15

Diagnosis

16

Treatment

16

C. Tysabri (natalizumab)

17

Mode of action

17

Development, clinical trials and regulatory approval

18

Withdrawal from US market, reintroduction and approval in Europe

18

D. Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy (PML)

19

E. John Cunningham Virus (JCV)

20

F. Knowledge and experience of PML

21

Assessing PML Risk

21

G. Use of assays

23

H. Immunology, antibodies and viruses

24

Antibodies

24

Viruses and viral infection

25

I. Types of assay

26

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)

26

Haemagglutination inhibition assay (HAI)

26

Immunoassays

26

Indirect ELISA

26

Competitive (inhibition) ELISA

28

J. Performing an ELISA

29

Optical density (OD) measurement

29

Plates and controls

31

ELISA output

31

K. Analysing assay performance

32

THE PRIOR ART

33

Gorelik

33

Patients and Methods

34

Technical details of the assay

34

Establishing cut points of the assay

35

Results

35

Use of the Gorelik assay to determine seropositivity rate, false negative rate and seroconversion

37

Discussion

38

The disputed point on disclosure

39

WO369

40

Additional technical information

41

The dispute over the disclosure of WO369

42

THE PATENT

44

Background and acknowledged prior art

44

Summary of the Invention

45

The Detailed Description

46

Example 1

48

Example 2

48

Example 3

49

The meaning of ‘titer’ in the Patent

50

Example 4 and Fig 11

51

Reference Example 5

52

Example 6 and Figs 12 & 13

52

Example 7 and Table 10

59

CLAIM INTERPRETATION/CLAIM SCOPE

62

Legal Principles

62

Interpretation of Claim 1

65

The development of the issue of interpretation of claim 1

66

Sandoz's construction

66

Biogen's constructions

67

Analysis

74

My conclusions as to the construction of claim 1

76

The numerical limit of >1.5

77

VALIDITY

78

INSUFFICIENCY

78

Introduction

78

Legal Principles

79

Classical Insufficiency – undue burden

79

Uncertainty

80

Breadth of claim insufficiency

81

Application to the facts

82

Classical undue burden insufficiency & uncertainty insufficiency

82

The target

82

Sandoz's case in outline

83

Biogen's case in outline

84

Cut-off calibrator

85

Mr Baldwin's first route

85

The ‘key features’ in Example 3

86

HPVLPs and other assay components

89

The “top 50% of seropositives” – “like trying to build a house on quicksand”

93

Identifying the seronegatives

94

Splitting the seropositives 50/50

95

Biogen's attempted answers

97

Mr Baldwin's second approach

98

Biogen's case in closing

99

Secondary evidence of insufficiency

100

Conclusions

101

Breadth of Claim Insufficiency

102

Biogen's response

104

Conclusion

105

EXCLUDED SUBJECT MATTER

105

ADDED MATTER

106

The §7(c) point

106

The §7(d)-(g) point

110

ALLEGED LACK OF INVENTIVE STEP

111

Legal Principles

111

Application to the facts

112

A summary of Sandoz's arguments

112

CGK of particular relevance

113

Gorelik

115

Sandoz's argument for obviousness

115

Motivation

115

Further reasons to examine the nOD values

117

Secondary evidence

118

WO369

119

Sandoz's argument for obviousness

119

Motivation

119

Biogen's Response

122

Multiple alternative paths

122

Study not routine

122

Access to samples

124

Analysis

124

INFRINGEMENT

125

The territorial issue

125

The facts

125

Biogen's case

126

Sandoz's response

127

Applicable legal principles

127

Application to the facts

130

Analysis

131

The technical issues

132

Applicable legal principles

132

The index value

134

Biogen's allegation of infringement on a normal construction

134

Biogen's allegation of infringement by equivalents

135

Analysis

136

The ‘control composition’ feature

138

Infringement by equivalents

139

Analysis

139

‘ARROW’ RELIEF

140

Introduction

140

Applicable legal principles

140

Sandoz's submissions

142

Biogen's submissions

145

Fundamental obstacles

145

1. The characterisation of this declaration

145

2. Certainty

146

Utility

148

Technical merit

148

Biogen's response in closing

149

Analysis

149

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS

150

INTRODUCTION

1

This trial was principally concerned with EP (UK) 3 575 792 (‘EP792’ or ‘the Patent’). The action was commenced by the Claimants (‘Sandoz’) seeking revocation of the Patent and certain declaratory relief in view of the existence of further divisional(s) still in the process of prosecution. The Defendant (‘Biogen’) counterclaimed for infringement, as the registered proprietor of the Patent. Since both infringement and validity remained in issue, Biogen opened the trial.

2

The Patent is entitled ‘ Method of assessing risk of PML’. The parties agreed the priority date was 20 th April 2012 (the ‘ Priority Date’). PML stands for Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy, which is a rare but very serious neurological condition with a high fatality rate.

3

Biogen has, since 2006, marketed a treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (‘RRMS’) called Tysabri, in which the active ingredient is the monoclonal antibody natalizumab. Natalizumab was protected by a patent and by an SPC which expired in July 2020. Sandoz has been developing a biosimilar natalizumab product for treatment of RRMS called Tyruko, for which marketing authorisation was granted by the MHRA on 9 October 2023. Biogen does not assert that it has any UK rights which would be infringed by Sandoz's Tyruko product.

4

Natalizumab is generally an effective and well tolerated treatment for RRMS. However, in 2005, during the course of phase III trials, three cases of PML were detected in patients being treated with natalizumab. PML was known to be caused by the John Cunningham virus (‘JCV’). JCV infection is widespread in the population and is generally benign, but occasionally the virus can reactivate and lead to PML, particularly in individuals with suppressed immune systems. By the priority date it was well established that treatment with natalizumab could in some individuals lead to reactivation of JCV and the development of PML, and that prior infection with JCV was a pre-requisite for this occurring. It was also well established that MS patients who tested positive for anti-JCV antibodies were at a higher risk of developing PML than patients who tested negative for anti-JCV antibodies.

5

By 2012 it was understood that, in addition to JCV infection (as measured by the detection of JCV antibodies in a patient's sample), the risk factors associated with developing PML were: (1) whether or not the patient had been on immunosuppressive drugs; and (2) the length of time the patient had been treated with natalizumab. The following estimates of risk had been published in a review article by Kappos et al in 2011:

Figure 3: Estimated risk of PML based on anti-JCV antibody status, previous immunosuppressant use, and duration of natalizumab treatment

6

As can be seen from these data, a patient who had been treated with natalizumab for up to 4 years, and was JCV antibody negative, had a ≤0.11 in 1,000 chance of developing PML. For a patient who was JCV antibody positive, the incidence was, for the first 2 years of treatment, three-fold higher at 0.35 in 1,000, rising to 2.5 in 1,000, if treatment was for 2–4 years. Patients were counselled in relation to these risks and based on this information would choose whether or not they wanted to be treated, or continue to be treated, with natalizumab. Many patients were faced with the agonising dilemma of having to face recurrence of episodes of RRMS, which were otherwise being kept at bay by natalizumab, balanced against the alarming potential complication of proceeding with natalizumab therapy and developing PML.

7

Notwithstanding the issues over construction and validity which I outline below, there is no doubt that the work summarised in the Patent...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 cases
  • DSM IP Assets B.v v. Algal Omega 3 Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division (Patents Court)
    • 20 March 2025
    ...itself, where the number of decimal places featured in the claim was influential. DSM also mentioned my own decision in Sandoz v Biogen [2024] EWHC 2567 (Pat), where, at [301]–[307] I interpreted ‘>1.5’ in the claim as a bookend, it being highly relevant that the specification included a......
  • Sandoz AG & Ors v Biogen MA Inc
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division (Patents Court)
    • 11 October 2024
    ...claims being sought in the EP application under consideration are sufficient or not, and that will require them to go back to the PCT[2024] EWHC 2567 (Pat) Case Nos: HP-2021-000031 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST PATE......