Posts

Showing posts with the label Markush

Plausibility - Generics (UK) Ltd and others v AstraZeneca AB

Image
  Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Peter Jackson, Arnold and Stuart Smith) Generics (UK) Ltd and others v AstraZeneca AB    [2025] EWCA Civ 903 (16 July 2025) This was an appeal by AstraZeneca AB from the judgment of Dr Michael Tappin KC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court in    Generics (UK) Ltd v AstraZeneca AB [2025] EWHC 1012 (Pat) (28 April 2025).  In that case, Generics (UK) Limited and several other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers had claimed a declaration that the following supplementary protection certificates were invalid and an order for their revocation: SPC/GB13/021  for dapagliflozin and pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof;   and SPC/GB14/050  for a combination of dapagliflozin or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof and metformin or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof.  Those SPCs derived from  European patent (UK) 1 506 211 B1 .  The claimants contended that the ...

Patents - Gilead Sciences Inc v NuCana Plc

Image
  Jane Lamber t Patents Court  (Mr Justice Meade) G ilead Sciences Inc and another NuCana PLC  [2023] EWHC 611 (Pat) (21 March 2023) This was an action by Gilead Sciences Inc. and its British subsidiary Gilead Sciences Ltd ("Gilead") for revocation of two European Patents (UK) that had been granted to NuCana Plc ("NoCana"), namely  EP 2 955 190 B1 (“EP190”)  and   EP 3 904 365 B1 (“EP365”) .  NuCana complained that Gilead's product  sofosbuvir  infringed its patents. Mr Justice Meade, who tried the action, could see no real defence to the counterclaim if the claims of the patents were valid. Grounds of Revocation Gilead sought revocation of the patents on the following grounds: Added matter in that the  Markush group definitions of the claims  of the patents are not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application; Lack of plausibility in that the Patents do not plausibly disclose any technical contribu...