The case concerns the analysis of obviousness, when the prior art teaches structurally and functionally similar chemical compounds, proving a definite range and variables for a solution of stability.  The Appeal Court held that prior art ranges for solutions of structurally and functionally similar compounds that overlap with a claimed range can establish a prima facie case of obviousness. If one of the predictable solutions leads to an anticipated success, the outcome was obvious to try.

This judgment deals with an appeal submitted to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”) that concerns an application of a test of obviousness on a dosage patent under section 3 of the Patents Act 1977. The Court held that the inventiveness of dosage patent claims needs to be determined on a case by case basis and that the routine nature of the research that resulted in the discovery of a lower efficient dose undermines the inventiveness of the claims.

The Court of Justice of the European Communities (CJEC), known today as the Court of Justice of the European Union, examined the application of most aspects of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which prohibits agreements restricting competition. It held inter alia that the prohibition of Article 101 TFEU applies not only to horizontal agreements but also to vertical agreements.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) upheld the General Court’s decision that AstraZeneca abused its dominant position by excluding from the market competing manufacturers of generic products. The CJEU concluded that AstraZeneca’s attempt to mislead the patent offices amounted to an abuse of a dominant position and that the deregistration of the marketing authorizations (MAs) for its anti-ulcer medicine with the principal intention of preventing generic market entry was inconsistent with European competition law.

The Federal Circuit ruled on the Supreme Court’s broad interpretation of the regulatory review exemption to patent infringement, also known as the Bolar exemption. The Federal Circuit reversed its previous decision of infringement, holding that Merck’s preclinical development activities that were ultimately not the subject of a submission to United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were still exempt from infringement under the regulatory review exemption.  

The Court of Justice of the European Union confirmed its position that a contractual obligation to pay royalties for a licensed intellectual property (IP) right does not depend on the validity of the licensed IP right. Such contractual obligation in the Court’s view is compatible with competition law provided the licensee has the right to terminate the licensing agreement.

In this case, the German Federal Court of Justice, the country´s highest civil and criminal court, confirmed for the first time ever a compulsory license granted in preliminary proceedings for an HIV medicament.

The Supreme Court of the United States found that in a suit involving illegal restraint of trade, the validity of a patent could be subject to challenge if the patent is directly involved in the anti-trust violation.

The Intellectual Property Appellate Board upheld the decision of the Controller of Patents to grant India’s first compulsory license and elaborated when the grounds and conditions for compulsory licenses are satisfied.

The Supreme Court ruled that once the patent holder has authorized a sale all of its patent rights in that item are exhausted, regardless of any post-sale contractual restrictions or the location of the sale.