REGISTER now: Sweden Event - A new era for innovation: AI, the UPC and global patent opportunities
​

Merck v Teva: Time to be obvious

No items found.
​
May 20, 2011
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
Life
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

A recent judgment made by the Chancellor of the UK High Court in a patent dispute has highlighted that the test for obviousness (i.e. inventive step) of the subject matter of a patent does not involve any time limit. The only element of time to consider in relation to obviousness is the state of the art at the priority date. It does not matter that it may take time after the priority date to complete development of the prior art into the invention.

The judgment related to patent revocation proceedings between Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp (Merck) and Teva UK Ltd (Teva), where Merck was appealing against an earlier decision made by the UK Patents Court to revoke their patent for lack of inventive step.

Merck’s patent related to a process for obtaining an ophthalmic solution consisting of a combination of two drugs, timolol and dorzolamide, for use in the treatment of glaucoma. However a research paper, which was published six days before the priority date of Merck’s patent application, presented experimental research indicating that consecutive administration of the two drugs reduced intraocular pressure in the eye (this being one of the symptoms of glaucoma). In the UK Patent’s Court proceedings Merck’s patent was therefore revoked on the grounds that it was not inventive over this research paper.

Merck appealed against the revocation decision on a number of grounds; however all of these grounds, apart from those relating to claim 18 of the patent, were rejected by the Chancellor of the High Court.

The remaining grounds related to whether an approach proposed by Teva for taking the disclosure of the research paper and developing it would result in the invention claimed in claim 18. If this was the case claim 18 would be considered obvious as the approach proposed by Teva did not involve any inventive steps, and could be applied to the state of the art at the priority date.

Although Merck agreed that the steps involved in Teva’s proposed approach were a matter of trial and error and therefore did not involve any inventive step, Merck countered that the six days between the publication of the research paper and the filing of Merck’s patent application was too short a time to allow the proposed approach to be completed. Thus it was claimed that the judge had incorrectly applied hindsight in determining that the invention of claim 18 was obvious, as the approach proposed by Teva would in reality take a substantial amount of time to complete, and could not have been completed by the priority date of Merck’s patent.

In the end, although the Chancellor agreed that the approach proposed by Teva could not be completed in the six days between the publication of the research paper and the priority date of the patent application, he rejected Merck’s argument because, as stated above, it does not matter that it may take time after the priority date to complete development of the prior art into the invention. The fact that the approach proposed by Teva could be applied at the priority date to develop the invention from the prior art without any inventive steps was sufficient to make the claimed invention obvious, regardless of how long the proposed approach would take.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Court of Appeal focuses on the technical effect to determine added matter
30 September 2026
The Court of Appeal provided guidance on their approach to assessing added subject matter, highlighting that the technical effect underlying the invention and how the claimed and unclaimed features contribute thereto is central to the analysis.
​
Court of Appeal affirms interpretation of product-by-process features in claims, and clarifies applicable law pre-June 2023
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that product-by-process features in a product claim limit the claim only where the specified process imparts characteristics that can be achieved solely by that process. It also clarified the law applicable to acts occurring before 1 June 2023, holding that UPC law may apply to ongoing infringement for injunctive relief, whereas damages for acts completed before that date are governed by national law, and that claims for provisional protection remain governed by national law.
​
Appeal reveals tricky deadlines for orders contained in decisions
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that where a “privileged order” under Rule 220(1)(c), such as an order relating to the production of evidence under Article 59 UPCA and Rule 190 RoP, is contained within a decision on the merits, a 15 day appeal deadline for that order applies, separate from the substantive appeal deadline. Appeals challenging such orders after that deadline are inadmissible, and parties cannot circumvent the appeal rules by re-filing substantially the same request in the appeal proceedings.
​