UK drugmaker denies patent infringement over veterinary anti-nausea injection formula in London High Court proceedings brought by Dechra subsidiary
A drugmaker has denied copying a formula owned by a unit of Dechra Pharmaceuticals used to treat vomiting in cats and dogs, arguing in London High Court proceedings that Dechra never held a valid patent over the compound in the first place. The dispute centres on a veterinary injection product, with the defendant challenging the validity of the underlying patent rather than simply denying infringement — a dual 'squeeze' defence strategy common in pharmaceutical patent litigation, where a defendant argues both that it did not infringe and that, even if it did, the patent should never have been granted. For Dechra, the case represents a significant commercial threat. The company — which was taken private by EQT in a £4.6 billion transaction in 2023 — generates substantial revenue from its specialist veterinary pharmaceutical portfolio, and protecting exclusivity over companion animal medicines is central to its PE-backed growth strategy. Patent protection in this segment is particularly hard-fought given the relatively small patient populations and the high regulatory cost of obtaining veterinary marketing authorisations. The proceedings illustrate a broader trend: as PE sponsors push portfolio companies to maximise IP monetisation ahead of exit, challenges to veterinary and specialty pharmaceutical patents are increasing. Any invalidity finding would open the market to generic competition and directly impair Dechra's asset value.
Why this matters
This case activates both intellectual property litigation (patent validity and infringement) and PE portfolio management advice simultaneously. Dechra's PE sponsor EQT has a direct economic interest in the outcome: a patent invalidity finding reduces the defensible IP estate and therefore the exit valuation of the business. Lawyers advising on the dispute will need to co-ordinate between patent litigation specialists and corporate advisers tracking the impact on any M&A or debt refinancing process. The 'why now' driver is the post-buyout IP audit cycle — PE firms typically commission detailed IP reviews following acquisition, and any weaknesses identified often surface in litigation within two to three years of a buyout closing. Disputes and IP practices with veterinary or specialty pharma experience are the primary beneficiaries of this instruction.
On the Ground
A trainee on this matter would assist with disclosure review and categorisation of technical documents relating to the patent's prosecution history, prepare a chronology of the product's development and regulatory approval, and help compile the trial bundle including expert evidence on pharmaceutical formulation.
Interview prep
Soundbite
Dual patent validity and infringement challenges in PE-owned pharma portfolios turn IP litigation into a direct valuation risk for sponsors approaching exit.
Question you might get
“What is a 'squeeze' defence in patent litigation, and how would you advise a PE-backed pharmaceutical company facing one ahead of a planned exit process?”
Full answer
A drugmaker is challenging both the infringement allegations and the underlying validity of a Dechra unit's veterinary patent in London High Court proceedings. For law firms, the case illustrates how PE-backed pharmaceutical companies face compounding risk — an invalidity finding not only loses the infringement claim but strips exclusivity from a core product and depresses exit value for the sponsor. The dual-squeeze defence strategy (challenging validity while denying infringement) is standard in specialist pharma patent litigation and requires close coordination between IP litigators and the corporate team tracking any M&A implications. This reflects a structural trend of PE sponsors commissioning aggressive IP enforcement and facing corresponding validity challenges as they prepare portfolio companies for sale.
Sources
My notes
saved