Teva UK Ltd and Another v Astrazeneca AB

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Justice Sales
Judgment Date02 September 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] EWHC 2873 (Pat)
Docket NumberCase No: HP13E01725
CourtChancery Division (Patents Court)
Date02 September 2014

[2014] EWHC 2873 (Pat)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

PATENTS COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

PATENTS COURT

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Sales

Case No: HP13E01725

Case No: HP14A01924

Between:
(1) Teva UK Limited
(2) Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited
Claimants
and
Astrazeneca AB
Defendant
Between:
(1) Astrazeneca AB
(2) Astrazeneca UK Limited
Claimants
and
(1) Teva Pharma BV
(2) Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited
(3) Teva UK Limited
Defendants

Simon Thorley QC & Thomas Hinchliffe (instructed by Pinsent Masons LLP) for the Claimants in HP13E01725 and for the Defendants in HP14A01924

Richard Meade QC & Kathryn Pickard (instructed by Arnold & Porter LLP) for the Defendants in HP13E01725 and for the Claimants in HP14A01924

Hearing dates: 11/6/14–18/6/14

Approved Judgment

I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

Mr Justice Sales

Introduction

1

This case concerns a patent held by AstraZeneca AB as proprietor, and exclusively licensed to AstraZeneca UK Limited (I refer to the AstraZeneca companies as "AZ"), in relation to a treatment for asthma. The patent is European Patent (UK) No. 1,085,877, entitled "Use of a composition comprising formoterol and budesonide for the prevention or treatment of an acute condition of asthma" ("the Patent"). The priority date of the Patent is 11 June 1998.

2

Formoterol is a long-acting β 2-agonist ("LABA") with bronchodilator action. Budesonide is an inhaled corticosteroid ("ICS") with anti-inflammatory action. The Patent relates to the use of this combination of drugs both for the regular treatment of asthma, to keep symptoms in check (referred to as "maintenance" use), and for the treatment of acute attacks (referred to as "rescue" or "relief" use).

3

This is the joined hearing in two actions. The first is a revocation action in respect of the Patent, commenced in May 2013, brought by Teva UK Limited and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited. The second is an infringement action, commenced in May 2014, brought by AZ against those companies and Teva Pharma BV (I refer to the three Teva companies as "Teva"). The Teva group manufactures and distributes generic pharmaceutical products. The infringement action was commenced when it emerged that in April 2014 Teva was granted marketing authorisations for two products, BiResp Spiromax and DuoResp Spiromax, falling within the claims of the Patent.

4

The Patent covers a therapy for asthma which combines formoterol and budesonide in a single inhaler which can be used both for maintenance and for relief. At trial and in the relevant scientific literature this was referred to as "SMART", standing for "Symbicort maintenance and reliever therapy for asthma" or for "single inhaler maintenance and relief treatment". "Symbicort" is the name of AZ's combined formoterol and budesonide inhaler. AZ's case is that the idea for having treatment for asthma for both maintenance and relief by means of a single inhaler, as set out in the Patent, is novel and was not obvious at the priority date for the Patent in June 1998.

5

AZ's primary position in the revocation action is that the Patent is valid. However, if it fails on that issue, AZ makes a conditional application to amend the Patent claims. It puts forward three sets of amended claims. The Patents Directorate of the UK Intellectual Property Office ("the IPO") has written a letter dated 28 May 2014 objecting to AZ's amended claims. The IPO did not seek to intervene to be heard in these proceedings.

6

In the event, there were no issues in the infringement action which required resolution by the court at this stage. AZ seeks quia timet injunctive relief against Teva. The Court has to address the existence and extent of any threat by Teva to infringe AZ's rights by reference to the circumstances as they exist at present. It is possible that there may be material changes of circumstances in future which might justify AZ in returning to court to seek injunctive relief in the light of those new circumstances.

7

It is agreed that there would be no infringement by Teva of AZ's second amended claim, but if the existing Patent is found to be invalid and AZ seeks to rely on the amended claims, the Court is required to scrutinise the validity of the second amended claim even though Teva does not find it necessary to argue against it.

8

I was informed that the Patent is currently the subject of opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office ("the EPO"). A decision of the Opposition Division, dated 15 March 2012, finding the Patent invalid on the ground of obviousness in the light of a piece of prior art relied on in these proceedings (a patent, "WO '773", dating from 1993 – "the 1993 Patent"), is currently under appeal. The resolution of that appeal will take some time. Meanwhile, the parties are agreed that I should address the issues in the proceedings before me on the basis of the evidence I heard, without reviewing or relying on the EPO proceedings.

The legal framework

9

Section 1(1) of the Patents Act 1977 sets out conditions which have to be satisfied before a patent can be issued. These include, at subsection (1)(b), that the relevant invention "involves an inventive step".

10

Section 2(1) and (2) provide:

"(1) An invention shall be taken to be new if it does not form part of the state of the art.

(2) The state of the art in the case of an invention shall be taken to comprise all matter (whether a product, a process, information about either, or anything else) which has at any time before the priority date of that invention been made available to the public (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) by written or oral description, by use or in any other way."

11

Section 3 provides:

"An invention shall be taken to involve an inventive step if it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art, having regard to any matter which forms part of the state of the art by virtue only of section 2(2) above …."

12

Section 4A provides for the grant of patents in relation to methods of treatment or diagnosis. Section 4A(3) stipulates that in the case of an invention consisting of a substance or composition for use in a method of treatment of the human body, "the fact that the substance or composition forms part of the state of the art shall not prevent the invention from being taken to be new if the use of the substance or composition in any such method does not form part of the state of the art." Section 4A(4) makes similar provision in the case of an invention consisting of a substance or composition for a specific use in any such method.

13

Section 72 provides for a power to revoke patents on application, on grounds which include, at sub-paragraph (a), that "the invention is not a patentable invention", and at sub-paragraph (c), that "the specification of the patent does not disclose the invention clearly enough and completely enough for it to be performed by a person skilled in the art."

14

Section 14 governs the making of an application for a patent. Section 14(5)(b) provides that the claim or claims in an application "shall … be clear and concise".

15

Section 75 provides that a patent may be amended following its grant. However, section 76(3) provides in relevant part that "No amendment of the specification of a patent shall be allowed under … section 75 if it – (a) results in the specification disclosing additional matter …".

The witnesses

16

I heard evidence from an expert in respiratory medicine on each side.

17

Professor Duncan Geddes was the expert witness for Teva. He holds the chair in Respiratory Medicine at Imperial College, London. He qualified in medicine in 1971 and has had a long career with a significant interest in the treatment of asthma. At the relevant times — in particular, in 1993, which is relevant for questions in relation to interpretation of the 1993 Patent, and in 1998, which is relevant for questions in relation to interpretation of the Patent in suit in these proceedings and the issue of obviousness in relation to that Patent — he was a practising clinician with a particular interest in and practice relating to asthma. He was not himself a research scientist, but occupied a middle position between such a scientist and an ordinary GP who might be called upon to treat patients with asthma in the usual course of their practice. He had a good understanding of the main currents of thinking in relation to the treatment of asthma in the 1990s.

18

In their submissions, AZ acknowledged that Professor Geddes was an honest witness (this was obvious), but were critical of his evidence in a number of respects. Contrary to these criticisms, I found Professor Geddes to be a good and reliable witness, with good and appropriate expertise to give evidence on the issues in the case.

19

AZ contended that under cross-examination Professor Geddes departed from his written evidence in certain respects. There is some force in this. The drafting of one or two statements in his reports was not quite so careful and clear as it might have been, and there was a significant acknowledgement by him in his oral evidence that it was not obvious to move from a particular article (Arvidsson et al., "Inhaled formoterol during one year in asthma: a comparison with salbutamol", Eur. Respir. J., 1991 – "Arvidsson"), originally pleaded by Teva as critical prior art, to the invention in the Patent. Teva's pleaded reliance on Arvidsson as critical prior art was abandoned in the course of the trial. However, I found that this did not have a significant impact on the overall effect and reliability of Professor Geddes's evidence. For the most part, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd v Wyeth Holdings Llc
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 12 May 2016
    ...Civ 1260; [2011] FSR 8 at [6]. 29 GSK relied on the following passage from the judgment of Sales J. in Teva v Astrazeneca (asthma) [2014] EWHC 2873 (Pat), (2015) 142 BMLR 94 at [60]: "The authorities indicate that CGK includes not just information directly in the mind of the notional skille......
  • Interdigital Technology Corporation v Lenovo Group Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division (Patents Court)
    • 29 July 2021
    ...needs to be as clear as the subject matter reasonably admits of.” 265 Sales J referred to LG Philips in Teva UK Ltd v AstraZeneca AB [2014] EWHC 2873 (Pat) and cautioned (at [109]): “On the other hand, a patent defines an intellectual property right and the scope of the patentee's legally ......
  • Decision Nº O/579/18 from Intellectual Property Office - (Patent decisions), 18 September 2018
    • United Kingdom
    • Intellectual Property Office (United Kingdom)
    • 18 September 2018
    ...apply the invention. It will only lack an inventive step if it is obvious to such a man. 9 Teva UK Limited & Anor v AstraZeneca AB [2014] EWHC 2873 (Pat), see especially para 60 10 General Tire & Rubber Co v Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co Ltd [1972] RPC 457, see especially para 482-483 11 Beloi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT