Sandoz AG v Biogen Ma Inc.
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Chancery Division (Patents Court) |
| Judge | Mr Justice Mellor |
| Judgment Date | 11 October 2024 |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] EWHC 2567 (Pat) |
| Docket Number | Case Nos: HP-2021-000031 |
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
| 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 FreeStart 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
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
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
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
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
Start Your Free Trial
-
DSM IP Assets B.v v. Algal Omega 3 Ltd
...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
...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......