Patents
The House of Lords has upheld the patentability of escitalopram—the world’s biggest-selling anti-depressant—following a lengthy legal battle.
Five law lords unanimously ruled that Lundbeck’s patent to the drug, an enantiomer of the popular serotonin inhibitor citalopram, was valid.
Lundbeck’s invention was a way of making the drug, but not the only way.
Its validity had been challenged by three generics manufacturers—Generics (UK), Arrow Generics, and Teva.
In Generics (UK) Ltd and Ors v H Lundbeck, the law lords considered whether the product claim was “sufficient” to merit protection. The law lords found that it was. They distinguished the case of Biogen v Medeva because it related to a product identified partly by the way in which it has been made and partly by what it does, rather than to a simple product claim.
Lord Neuberger said: “I appreciate that this means that, by finding one method of making a product, a person can obtain a monopoly for that product. However, that applies to any product claim.”
He added: “The role of fortuity in patent law cannot be doubted: it is inevitable, as in almost any area of life. Luck as well as skill often determines, for instance, who is first to file, whether a better product or process is soon discovered, or whether an invention turns out to be valuable.”
