Teva UK Ltd and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v LEO Pharma A/S and LEO Laboratories Ltd (Third Party), Patents Court, 6 October 2014,  EWHC 3096 (Pat), Birss J
The Patents Court held two Leo Pharma patents concerning a treatment for psoriasis invalid on the ground of obviousness. The case is of interest not only for the unusual way in which the obviousness attack was structured but also due to the Court’s approach to regulatory considerations when assessing obviousness.
The two patents (EP 1,178,808 and EP 2,455,083) related to an ointment treatment for psoriasis comprising a combination of a corticosteroid and a vitamin D analogue with a particular solvent. Leo Pharma has a successful product marketed in the UK as Dovobet Ointment, which is protected by both patents. Its sales are substantial. Teva wished to sell a generic version of that ointment. Teva contended that Leo Pharma’s patents were invalid on three grounds: obviousness, insufficiency and added matter. Leo Pharma applied to amend the claims of both patents and contended that the claims in their amended form were valid. Leo Pharma also contended that Teva’s proposed product would infringe the patents.