High Court dismisses Biogen's appeal in patent dispute

High Court dismisses Biogen's appeal in patent dispute

The High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Intellectual Property List (ChD), Patents Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Mellor, has delivered a significant ruling in the case involving Sandoz AG and others against Biogen MA Inc. The judgment, handed down on 7th November 2024, addressed Biogen's application for permission to appeal a previous decision.

The case centred around a patent dispute where Biogen challenged the construction of specific patent claims. The claimants, Sandoz AG, Sandoz Limited, Sandoz GmbH, and Polpharma Biologics SA, represented by Ms. Kathryn Pickard and Mr. Thomas Lunt of Bristows LLP, contended against Biogen's interpretation.

Biogen, represented by Dr. Justin Turner KC and Mr. Tom Alkin of Powell Gilbert LLP, argued that the judgment contained internal inconsistencies, particularly concerning the index value of 1.5 in the patent claims. Dr. Turner asserted that the court's rejection of Construction 3, Biogen's preferred interpretation, was inconsistent because the same criticism could apply to Construction 5, which the court upheld.

Mr. Justice Mellor, however, found no such inconsistency in his judgment. He clarified that Construction 5 was adopted as it best met the circumstances of the case, despite its imperfections. The court's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the arguments presented by both parties.

In evaluating Biogen's grounds for appeal, Mr. Justice Mellor sought a viable path for Biogen to establish the validity of their claims. After careful consideration, he concluded that Biogen did not have a realistic prospect of success on grounds 1 and 2, which were crucial to their appeal.

The court's refusal to grant permission to appeal on these grounds effectively ended Biogen's pursuit of the appeal, as grounds 3, 4, and 5 were contingent upon the success of the initial grounds. This decision underscores the challenges faced by parties in patent disputes, particularly in cases involving complex technical constructions.

This ruling is significant for intellectual property practitioners, especially those dealing with patent law. It highlights the importance of precise claim construction and the difficulties in overturning a court's interpretation once established.

Learn More

For more information on intellectual property law and patent disputes, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.