Resolution Chemicals Limited v H. Lundbeck A/S, Court of Appeal, London, UK, 29 July 2013, Case no.  EWCA Civ 924
The Court of Appeal has upheld Arnold J’s first instance decision that Resolution is not precluded from challenging the validity of Lundbeck’s patent or SPC for escitalopram.
Resolution sought revocation of supplementary protection certificate SPC/GB02/049 (“the SPC”) on the basis of the alleged invalidity of the basic European Patent (UK) No. 0 347 066 for escitalopram (“the Patent”). Escitalopram is the (+) enantiomer of citalopram, a selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor used to treat depression.
Lundbeck issued an application seeking, amongst other things, summary judgment on the ground that Resolution was precluded from bringing its claim by virtue of privity of interest with Arrow (the validity of the Patent was previously challenged unsuccessfully by Arrow and others). Lundbeck’s application failed on all grounds. The only issue on appeal was with respect to Arnold J’s decision regarding privity of interest with Arrow.