Generics [UK] Limited (trading as Mylan) v Yeda Research and Development Co. Ltd & Anor  EWCA Civ 925, 29 July 2013, Court of Appeal
This was an appeal by Mylan against the first instance decision by Arnold J which was noted here. In this appeal Mylan contended that Arnold J had erred in not holding European Patent (UK) No. 0 762 888 (“the Patent”) relating to copolymer-1 for the treatment of MS invalid and in holding that Mylan’s product infringed the Patent.
Mylan contended on appeal that certain claims of the Patent are obvious in the light of a publication known as Johnson 1994; the Patent is invalid for obviousness as making no technical contribution because the specification does not make it plausible that the technical problem it describes is solved by products falling within the claims and/or because the technical problem is not in fact solved by the claimed product; Mylan’s product does not infringe the Patent on a proper construction of the claims or the claims are invalid for ambiguity-type insufficiency.
The Court of Appeal rejected Mylan’s appeal; finding that the Patent was valid and that Mylan had not established non-infringement of its product.