||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 102 (Oct)
|| EWCA Civ 1234
||Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Lord Justice Moore-Bick, Lord Justice Lewison and Lord Justice Kitchin
||Roger Wyand QC, Richard Meade QC and Tom Mitcheson (instructed by Marks & Clerk Solicitors LLP) for MedImmune.
||Simon Thorley QC, Justin Turner QC and Joe Delaney (instructed by Allen & Overy LLP) for Novartis.
||10 October 2012
Patent - Validity - Novelty - Obviousness - Dispute arising between pharmaceutical companies regarding product used for treatment of ocular degeneration - Judge finding patent invalid for obviousness - Defendant appealing - Whether judge erring in findings - Whether judge entitled to make findings.
Patent Validity. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered an appeal from the Patents Court of the Chancery Division, concerning the alleged infringement by the defendant company of two patents in the manufacture of a product used for the treatment of macular degeneration of the eye. It held that the judge had not erred in determining the skilled team to whom the patent was addressed, or in assessing obviousness or phage display, and hence the appeal was dismissed.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases