In two actions that were heard together, Teva and Sandoz (‘the Claimants’) sought revocation of Astellas’ patent EP (UK) 1 559 427 B1 (‘the Patent’). The judgment deals with the Claimants’ allegation that the patent is invalid due to obviousness over a piece of cited prior art and insufficiency run as a ‘squeeze’ against obviousness.

This is the end of the hard-fought UK battle between Neurim and Mylan. The Court of Appeal upheld Mr Justice Marcus Smith’s decision that the divisional patent was valid and infringed and so Mylan will now be subjected to a final injunction. The battle will continue in the European Patent Office (EPO), particularly as the parties agreed a cross-undertaking in damages in the event that the EPO revoke the patent (meaning Mylan dropped its application to stay the final injunction pending the EPO decision).

The winner in an intellectual property infringement action will normally ask the court for an order for procedures to take place so that a proper level of compensation or restitution can be calculated. There are two different ways in which that money can be calculated, namely an inquiry as to damages, and an account of profits.