A niche blog dedicated to the issues that arise when supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) extend patents beyond their normal life -- and to the respective positions of patent owners, investors, competitors and consumers. The blog also addresses wider issues that may be of interest or use to those involved in the extension of patent rights. You can email The SPC Blog here

Wednesday, 31 July 2013

Resolution not barred from challenge to escitalopram SPC by earlier Arrow action

Resolution Chemicals Ltd v H. Lundbeck A/S [2013] EWCA Civ 924 is not so much about SPCs themselves as about who may challenge their validity. In this Court of Appeal decision, the ruling of the Patents Court, England and Wales, was upheld. That was a decision by Mr Justice Arnold that Resolution was entitled to attack the validity of the patent upon which Lundbeck's escitalopram SPC was based -- even though Resolution was part of the same group of companies as Arrow Generics Ltd, which unsuccessfully challenged the same patent back in 2005. Resolution had not taken an active part in the 2005 litigation and, at that time, had given up its attempts to develop its own generic version of the drug at the time those proceedings took place. Accordingly, Resolution was not estopped by the doctrine of privity of interest from bringing a challenge to the same patent several years later.

No comments: