Barrister Jane Lambert writes in her 500th post at her NIPC blog:
This was a claim by Actavis for the revocation of a Novartis's European patent for a preparation which released fluvastatin (a cholesterol inhibiting drug) gradually rather than in an immediate burst on grounds of obviousness and insufficiency. There was also a counterclaim by Novartis for infringement of its patent. Novartis conceded that the claims as granted could not be granted and applied for their amendment. The claim and counterclaim came on before Mr Justice Warren and is reported at Actavis UK Ltd v Novartis AG  EWHC 41 (Ch) (16 January 2009)
This case is important because it is one of the first cases since Conor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc amd others  UKHL 49 (9 July 2008). Mr Justice Warren reviewed that case and others such as Windsurfing International Inc. v Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd  RPC 59 and Pozzoli SPA v BDMO SPA  FSR 872 in determining the extent to which Conor had changed the law.
Comparing the teaching of the patent to the pleaded prior art and common general knowledge the judge found that the patent was obvious. The claim on insufficiency failed. There was no dispute that the claimant's preparation would have infringed the defendant's patent had it been valid but in view of the finding of obviousness the counterclaim failed.
Read the full post here.