Nap judgment: why parties involved in parallel EPO proceedings should inform the Patents Court about scheduling issues

Abstract

Abstract In the latest chapter of the litigation involving Neurim’s second medical use patent relating to ‘Circadin’ (a prolonged-release formulation of melatonin), the Patents Court has held that Mylan—who had allegedly infringed Neurim’s European patent (‘EP702’) and had counterclaimed for revocation of EP702 on grounds of invalidity unsuccessfully before the UK court but successfully in opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office—was not issue-estopped from challenging the validity in the UK court of Neurim’s divisional patent (‘EP443’) with claims amended into a form ‘patentably indistinct’ from those of EP702.