For the half-year to 30 June 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Alberto Bellan, Darren Meale and Nadia Zegze.

Two of our regular Kats are currently on blogging sabbaticals. They are David Brophy and Catherine Lee.

Monday, 29 November 2004

SEROXAT PATENT VALID AFTER ALL, BUT STILL NOT INFRINGED

Today the Court of Appeal for England and Wales ruled that Glaxo's patent for its SEROXAT paroxetine hydrochloride anhydrate was valid (contrary to the opinion of the trial judge) but that Apotex did not infringe it. In Smithkline Beecham plc and others v Apotex Europe Limited and others the Court of Appeal, for whom Lord Justice Jacob gave judgment, had an opportunity to apply the recent House of Lords decision in Kirin-Amgen on the construction of patents. At paragraph 107 Jacob LJ did not mince his words when he said:

"Patent claims are to be construed purposively, their meaning to be ascertained from their context as the recent decision of the House of Lords in Kirin-Amgen v Hoechst Marion [2004] UKHL 46 has confirmed".
The IPKat notes the clarity of the court's message on purposive construction, but comments that fixing the text of construction is only the first step: it still remains to apply that test -- and that's where the real work lies.

Background to the case here
Is this antidepressant a downer? Click here and here
SEROXAT users' group here

No comments:

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':