Sandoz AG & Ors v Biogen MA Inc
[2024] EWHC 2567 (Pat)
Biontech SE & Anor v Curevac SE
7 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1408 (Pat)
High Court
A court case about a patent's validity. The judge decided that the companies challenging the patent need to show why it's a bad patent, and changed the trial schedule to give everyone enough time to present their evidence.
Key Facts
- •CureVac (patentee) agrees that EP 1 857 122 (“EP ’122”) is invalid based on the Supreme Court's decision in Warner-Lambert [2018] UKSC 56.
- •The case involves a dispute over the validity of EP '122.
- •The court addresses the 'derivable' test and 'ab initio implausibility' standard.
- •Pfizer/BioNTech are tasked with providing factual matters demonstrating the implausibility of the technical effect to the skilled addressee.
- •The trial timetable is adjusted to accommodate the examination of evidence and arguments.
Legal Principles
Validity of European Patent EP '122
Warner-Lambert [2018] UKSC 56
'Derivable' test in relation to patent validity
Not explicitly stated, derived from discussion
'Ab initio implausibility' standard for assessing patent validity
Not explicitly stated, derived from discussion
Outcomes
Pfizer/BioNTech must provide factual evidence demonstrating why the skilled addressee would consider the technical effect of the patent implausible.
The court finds that, under the 'ab initio implausibility' test, the burden lies on the party challenging the patent to provide reasons for doubting the technical effect.
Revised trial timetable: EP '122 to be concluded by lunchtime on Tuesday, July 9th; Professor Ashe's evidence to conclude by lunchtime on Thursday, July 18th.
The court needs sufficient time to review the patent, foreign decisions, and evidence, and prefers to handle EP '122 separately from other patents.