AstraZeneca patent revoked for obviousness

No items found.
​
March 29, 2012
No items found.
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

In a decision on 22 March in Teva and ors v AstraZeneca concerning a patent on a sustained release formulation of an anti-psychotic drug, Mr Justice Arnold revoked the patent due to obviousness.

In his IPKat blog, Darren Smyth draws comparisons between this decision and that of Actavis v Novartis, which involved a patent concerning a sustained release formulation of fluvastatin that was held to be obvious.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged independent claims
21 April 2026
In Emporia v Seoul Viosys, the UPC Central Division confirmed that the revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged claims. The decision underscores the importance of challenging all relevant claims where full patent revocation is sought.
​
Seriously deficient disclosure process not sufficient to reopen costs order - Cabo v MGA
08 April 2026
A High Court decision highlighting the consequences of inadequate disclosure searches under PD57AD and reaffirming that costs orders are final, even where later failures come to light.
​
UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​