I Wei Huang / Shutterstock.com
The case reinforced the need for interim injunction applications to be made as quickly as possible, explains Lydia Birch of EIP.
In the third chapter of Neurim and Flynn’s dispute with generic companies, handed down on April 23, Mr Justice Mellor refused the claimants’ application for an interim injunction against generic giant, Teva, on the basis that Teva would not be adequately compensated by damages if its melatonin product was taken off the market.
The first claimant (Neurim) is the registered proprietor of the EP443 patent; a divisional patent for a prolonged release formulation for the use of melatonin in the manufacture of a medicament for improving the restorative quality of sleep in a patient aged 55 years or older suffering from primary insomnia characterised by non-restorative sleep.
The second claimant (Flynn) is the exclusive licensee, which markets and sells the melatonin product Circadin in the UK. EP443 will expire on August 12, 2022.
To continue reading this article and to access our full archive, digital magazines and special reports you will need a subscription.
If you have already subscribed please login.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription we can add you into, please email Atif at firstname.lastname@example.org
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
For access to the complete website and archive choose '12 MONTH SUBSCRIPTION'. For a free, two-week trial select ‘TWO WEEK FREE TRIAL’.
Injunction, patent infringement, England and wales High Court, Teva, Neurim, Flynn