Testing the boundaries of subjectivity: Infringement of Swiss-type claims in Warner-Lambert v Actavis
The IPKat has previously presented the court’s
reasoning with regards to plausibility of second medical indication claims.
Time to turn to the issue of what constitutes infringement.
The protection conferred by means of Swiss-type claims
as well as the nature of the claims is of growing importance. This is the case
despite the fact that Swiss-type claims have
been replaced by purpose-limited product claims under 54(5) of the EPC2000 and the
Abbott ruling (G 0002/08 (Dosage regime/ABBOTT
RESPIRATORY) of 19.2.2010).
Infringement
of Claim 3
The focus of
the infringement ruling is Claim 3, stating
--
“use of pregabalin for the preparation of a
pharmaceutical composition for treating neuropathic pain”.
The claim in question is a purpose-limited process
claim. It is a process claim since it concerns the preparation of the substance
pregabalin, and it is a purpose-limited claim since it only covers the process
if undertaken in order to treat neuropathic pain Although the Court unanimously holds that if
Claims 1 and 3 had been valid, they would not have been infringed by Actavis,
the justification of the ruling differs substantially between the Lords .
Warner-Lambert pursued its infringement case under
section 60(1)(c) and separately, under section 60(2). Section 60 (1) provides:
“60.(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person infringes a patent for an invention if, but only if, while the patent is in force, he does any of the following things in the United Kingdom in relation to the invention without the consent of the proprietor of the patent, that is to say -
(a) where the invention is a product, he makes, disposes of, offers to dispose of, uses or imports the product or keeps it whether for disposal or otherwise;
(b) where the invention is a process, he uses the process or he offers it for use in the United Kingdom when he knows, or it is obvious to a reasonable person in the circumstances, that its use there without the consent of the proprietor would be an infringement of the patent;
(c) where the invention is a process, he disposes of, offers to dispose of, uses or imports any product obtained directly by means of that process or keeps any such product whether for disposal or otherwise."
The central point of difference between the Lords was the role that the
“mental element” in the acts of the alleged infringer is to play in order to
prove infringement under section 60(1)(c).
Lord
Sumption and Lord Reed
In this particular case, it is not disputed that Lecaent
was sold with labels and patient information to the effect that it was for the
treatment of seizure disorders and general anxiety disorder. According to Lord
Sumption, any other approach would in fact unnecessarily expose to liability
not only the generics manufacturer but also the pharmacist who handles his
product.
Lord
Mance
Taking into
consideration the fact that a generics manufacturer does not have any
contractual relationship to the physician or the apothecary, and is thus in no position to dictate the use of the substance, it should
be considered enough if the manufacturer makes it clear that the product is not
meant for the patented use. That being said, he underlines the importance of
allowing for another (and thus broader) interpretation, by which elements may
be taken into consideration in “other extreme cases”., For example,f“cases
where a generic manufacturer were to produce and supply quantities of the
pharmaceutical composition for a distributor in a context which only made sense
if they were destined for the patent-protected use”.
Lord Mance seems to be reluctant to give clear
and rigid interpretations to the issue at stake.
Lord Briggs and Lord Hodge
Lord Briggs and
Lord Hodge prefer the view of Arnold J ,
whereby the test is whether the
alleged infringer subjectively intended to target the patent-protected market. Lord Briggs proposes a
compromise, focusing on h, all “forensic means” that could assist in clarifying the intention
of the manufacturer to use the substance for the patented use. including but
not limited to packaging. In this
regard, any documents recording the manufacturer’s decision-making process, or
any other proof made available even under targeted disclosure, could be used to
support the “subjective element” of intent.
Lord Briggs
considers the German “only packaging will do” approach to be far too limited,
even if he also concludes that in the test he proposes, packaging, labeling and
patient instruction leaflets, will provide the most substantial source of
information. Lord Hodge concludes that the approach of Lord Briggs provides for more satisfactory protection for
the holder of a purpose-limited patent.
How objective should the “subjective element” be?
Introducing the
requirement of proof of a “mental element” in the determination of infringement
would of course entail a considerable burden for those wishing to make use of
generics, where certain uses are still covered by purpose-limited patents. As
all the Lords pinpoint, dealers and dispensers of pregabalin would not have the
possibility to know whether the steps taken by the manufacturer to prevent
leakage will be considered reasonable or not in a forthcoming infringement
procedure, and they could in fact prefer not to make use of the generic alternative at all.
Testing the boundaries of subjectivity: Infringement of Swiss-type claims in Warner-Lambert v Actavis
Reviewed by Frantzeska Papadopoulou
on
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
Rating:
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html