Summary
(1) In this article, the London 01 Apr 2009 html version of judgment of the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), a recent appellate court decision provides Napp and Purdue, in protecting OXYCONTIN, with a definitive patent infringement victory over both Ratiopharm GmbH and Sandoz Ltd (winners at the prior lower court). (2) Its conclusion at Paragraph No. 117 is clear and unambiguous. "The patents are valid and infringed." (3) This important decision reverses a prior 16 Dec 2008 decision. From a financial point of view OXYCONTIN is vital - "Its importance is shown by its sales figures - of the order of £32 million per annum in the UK alone." (Paragraph No. 4)
Analysis
(1) As background information, 2 items are noted below.
(a) Napp and Purdue are Independent Associated Private Companies; see websites of the controlling company Mundipharma Intl Ltd http://www.mundipharma.co.uk/ and of the patent holding company Euro-Celtique SA http://www.euro-celtique.com/ for details.
(b) The 2 European patents in this battle (EP0722730B1 granted 30 Oct 2002 and EP1258246B1 granted 17 Mar 2004) are each formulation-type patents (common title: Controlled Release Oxycodone Compositions) that are divisional applications of each other.
(3) Patent infringement litigation in the Life Sciences routinely requires a solid understanding of both patent law and of the underlying technical subject matter of the patents. The 01 Apr 2009 judgment (30 pages in the rtf format) is no exception; it provides extensive details of the technology at the center of this dispute; and, for brevity's sake its details are not reviewed here.
(4) Conclusion: It suffices to say that in a well-reasoned, organized opinion a prior victory for Ratiopharm and Sandoz has now been 100% reversed and the 2 European patents in question have been held to be both valid and infringed by the proposed generic OXYCONTIN medical products of Ratiopharm and Sandoz. Other European OXYCONTIN patent infringement litigation proceedings are ongoing.
