UK: Validity And Infringement Update

Last Updated: 1 February 2018
Article by Ben Levy, Nina O'Sullivan and David Rose

Supreme Court re-writes rules on scope of patent protection

In its groundbreaking decision in July 2017 between Eli Lilly and Actavis relating to pemetrexed, the Supreme Court fundamentally revised the UK approach to the scope of protection of patent claims, and confirmed the role to be played by a doctrine of equivalents. In doing so, the Court considered and re-formulated the Improver questions on patent infringement, and also clarified the 'sceptical, but not absolutist, attitude' that should be taken to the prosecution history of a patent when determining its scope. As a result of its more generous approach to construction, compared to the High Court and Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court overturned those courts' findings on direct infringement, finding that Actavis's generic product would directly infringe Lilly's pemetrexed disodium patent (and would also indirectly infringe). Actavis's product did not include the disodium salt referred to in claim 1 of the patent, but included as the active ingredient (a) pemetrexed itself (i.e., the free acid), or pemetrexed with the hydrogens on the two -CO2H units replaced by (b) tromethamine, or (c) potassium.

The Supreme Court's judgment has already had significant ramifications in determining the scope of protection in future infringement and validity cases, and in its impact on the drafting of patent claims.

The proper approach to the scope of protection and variants (per Lord Neuberger)

  1. Does the variant infringe any of the claims as a matter of normal interpretation?

    Whilst not considered by the Supreme Court, this has been understood in subsequent cases to mean purposive construction, not literal construction.

  2. If not, does the variant nonetheless infringe because it varies from the invention in a way or ways which is, or are, immaterial?

    This is to be assessed by reference to the revised Improver questions.


Patents Court considers new approach to scope of claims

The Patents Court has considered the Supreme Court's approach to scope of claims in a number of cases already. The first was a case concerning validity (Mylan & Synthon v Yeda & Teva relating to copaxone), suggesting, subject to a definitive further ruling from the Supreme Court on the issue, that the approach to assessing the scope of a claim for novelty and infringement purposes no longer remains the same. Consequently, whilst a claim could be infringed by a person doing exactly what the prior publication teaches, it could still be novel over that publication.

Reviewing the Supreme Court's approach, Arnold J considered that, before considering the question of equivalents, the approach to the construction of patent claims remains a purposive one. Whilst Lord Neuberger may have 'eschewed' the expression 'purposive construction' in Actavis v Lilly, he had clearly not intended to have meant that the purpose of the document, namely to describe and claim an invention, should no longer be considered.

Before Actavis v Lilly, it had long been settled law that the scope of a claim was the same for both novelty and infringement (a patentee should not be able to claim a broad scope for the purposes of infringement, but a narrower one for the purposes of validity). Arnold J agreed with Yeda/Teva that it is now no longer the law that a claim lacks novelty if the prior publication disclosed subject matter which, if performed, would necessarily infringe the claim. Instead, a claim will only lack novelty if the prior art publication disclosed subject matter which fell within the claim on its proper interpretation. It is not sufficient if the subject matter would infringe the claim applying the doctrine of equivalents.

The decision also confirms the limited role for Arrow declarations, which will depend upon the facts of the case and the patentee's conduct.


Arnold J's approach was subsequently followed in Fisher & Paykel Healthcare v ResMed Ltd, in a claim concerning CPAP devices – albeit the Deputy Judge noted these points were arguable, and would no doubt be considered afresh by the Court of Appeal and possibly the Supreme Court in due course.

It was also followed in Illumina v Premaitha, a substantial dispute involving five patents, concerning non-invasive prenatal diagnostic testing. The Judge, Henry Carr J's, decision concerning the first patent (Lo 1) raises a host of further interesting issues including:

  • Obviousness: the Judge considered the Actavis v ICOS decision on when steps can be characterised as so routine that the skilled person would carry them out irrespective of any prospect of success. Here, however, the prior art presented fundamentally flawed data and there was no fair expectation of success in the light of it.
  • Priority/enablement: the Judge reviewed statements by Lord Hoffman in Kirin-Amgen and Lord Neuberger in Actavis v Lilly and concluded that "... fairness to the patentee may require that unforeseeable variants, enabled for the first time by new technology, fall within the scope of protection, although the patentee is less likely to succeed where the variant was unforeseeable at the priority date. A variant which represents an inventive step may nonetheless infringe ... It would not make sense if, in those circumstances, the patent was found to be insufficient solely because such an inventive variant, which it did not enable, fell within the scope of its claims"
  • Scope of protection: the Judge agreed with Arnold J that the first limb of the Supreme Court's test in Actavis v Lilly, that of 'normal interpretation', meant purposive interpretation.
  • Infringement: one of the issues on infringement was Premaitha's argument that the steps of detection and analysis, which were crucial to the inventive concepts of the patents, took place outside of the UK. The Judge identified that the crucial question was where, in substance, was the process to be used? The answer was that it would be performed, in substance, by laboratories in the UK. Any other result would make it easy to avoid infringement, given the ease of digital transmission and off-shoring of computer processing. A further issue related to the status of Illumina as an ' exclusive licensee'.

It seems likely that this wide-ranging dispute will be heard by the Court of Appeal.

Most recently, in Saab Seaeye Limited v Atlas Elektronik & ECS Special Projects, the Court of Appeal, when considering the approach to claim construction, noted that the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Actavis v Lilly was that " least when considering the scope of protection, there is now a second question, to be asked after the patent claim has been interpreted, which is designed to take account of equivalents". However, the Court noted that the question of whether the doctrine of equivalence could be relied upon for the purposes of supporting an expansive scope of claim in the context of invalidity would have to await argument in another case.

Plausibility goes to the Supreme Court: Court of Appeal finds pregabalin second medical use patent invalid

In October 2016, the Court of Appeal delivered its much-anticipated decision in the dispute concerning Warner-Lambert's second medical use patent for the use of pregabalin for the treatment of pain, including neuropathic pain, and skinny labelled generic products. The Court of Appeal rejected Warner-Lambert's appeal, finding that the relevant claims were invalid on the grounds of insufficiency: they were not plausible across their breadth. Plausibility will now be considered by the Supreme Court in February 2018: given the considerable public policy interest in the role for plausibility in relation to sufficiency, inventive step (technical contribution) and industrial application, the Supreme Court's guidance will be crucial.

The Court also considered (obiter, as it was not necessary for the determination of the case) the important issue of infringement of second medical use patents: it affirmed the basic objective test i.e., whether Actavis knew or could foresee that at least some of the prescriptions written generically for pregabalin to treat pain would in fact be fulfilled by its product. However, once the existence of intention has been made out on this test, it may be negatived if the manufacturer had taken all reasonable steps within its power to prevent the foreseen consequences occurring.

The law is struggling on the one hand to give the patentee a proper reward for his contribution to the art by elucidating the new use for the drug, whilst at the same time not excluding the competing manufacturer from making and marketing the drug for its known purpose. The issue is complicated by the interaction with the law relating to, and the practice in, prescription medicines".

Floyd LJ


No interim injunction following obviousness ruling on tadalafil dosage patent

In a rare intervention, the Court of Appeal overturned a finding of inventive step in relation to ICOS/Lilly's tadalafil 5mg dosage regimen patent. Tadalafil is the generic name of the drug sold under the brand 'Cialis' for the treatment of male erectile dysfunction (ED).

The inventive concept of the patent was stated to be a smaller 5mg dosage of tadalafil, which remained effective but was combined with minimal side effects. However, the Court of Appeal found that there was no invention in a dose that was discovered by virtue of the dose ranging studies carried out as part of routine Phase IIb clinical studies. The claimed invention lay "at the end of the familiar path through the routine pre-clinical and clinical trials process" and the skilled team would embark on that process with a reasonable expectation of success, and would carry out Phase IIb dose ranging studies, including to find out the dose response relationship. It was very likely that, in doing so, they would test a 5mg daily dose and would find it safe and efficacious.

Lilly has applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and applied for an interim injunction to stop generic products entering the market, pending any possible appeal. Given that an appeal to the Supreme Court can take some time to resolve (around one to two years from filing the petition to judgment), this would have meant generic manufacturers would potentially have to factor in the likely timing of an appeal to the Supreme Court when taking steps to clear the way.

However, Henry Carr J rejected the application, as Lilly did not have a realistic prospect of success in a further appeal.


The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions