Practice - Neurim Pharmaceuticals v Mylan
![Image](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg75r4NeVi3ptDEWIdToBrNEfvI7YN3S4W_NFhi8kYQlSD2_4pFEjzUGjeMKpbTr-iqIPmgCvimx8f5qsrz_lxDKxx1Uylx7xWF9MfQcDuGZCjS42kF3cfp2tBs_YvjDkLKUGiV0ZpH4kY174djgsziBYFWBeVvh5nNSLVfyRQMzchvnn72Dkc/w400-h272/Rolls_Building,_Royal_Courts_of_Justice%20(1).jpg)
Author The Judicial Office, UK Lic ence CC BYSA 4.0 Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd and another v Generics UK Ltd (t/a Mylan) and another [2021] EWHC 2198 (Pat) (2 Aug 2021) This case shows how quickly the English courts can move to resolve disputes when there is a need for them do so. On 2 Aug 2022 Mr Justice Mellor ordered a 2-day trial of a number of preliminary issues in a claim for the infringement of European patent (UK) 3 103 443 2 months after the application for the expedited trial and 3 months after the patent had been granted. The reason for the urgency was that the patent prevented Mylan from marketing a treatment for insomnia through the use of melatonin. As Me Justice Mellor said at para [40] of his judgment in Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd and another v Generics UK Ltd (t/a Mylan) and another [2021] EWHC 2198 (Pat) (2 Aug 2021): "i) Neurim has a prima facie valid patent. ii) It would