rafapress / Shutterstock.com
The pharma company’s arguments focusing on ‘inventive step’ failed to convince a London court that the Israeli generic drug maker had infringed, explains Azadeh Vahdat of EIP.
In a patent revocation and infringement counterclaim action between Teva and Novartis, His Honour Judge Richard Hacon found, in a decision handed down on November 10 2022, lack of inventive step with respect to two Novartis formulation patents (EP 2,964,202 and EP 3,124,018)
He also ruled that Teva’s generic product ‘Teva DFX’ did not infringe the patents on either normal construction or on equivalents. The dispute involved a swallowable tablet version of Novartis’ ‘Exjade’ used to treat blood iron overload, previously only available as a dispersible tablet in Europe since 2006.
Novartis’s patents are obvious
Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review (LSIPR) tracks the increasing challenges for intellectual property specialists in the rapidly evolving world of life sciences. From gene patents to stem cell research, we provide the very best news and analysis.
To continue reading this article and to access 4,500+ articles, our digital magazines and special reports published for LSIPR subscribers only then you will need a subscription.
If you are already subscribed please login.
Official LSIPR subscribers include:
Allen & Overy
Arnold & Siedsma
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch LLP (BSKB)
Carpmaels & Ransford
European Patent Office
George Washington Law School
Kirkland & Ellis International LLP
Marks & Clerk
NiKang Therapeutics Inc.
Powell Gilbert LLP
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
World Intellectual Property Office
Novartis, Teva, iron overload treatment, inventive step, generic drug maker, prior art, infringement, patent revocation, Teva DFX, Exjade, EPO