The High Court of Ireland has delivered a significant blow to Bayer's intellectual property portfolio, ruling that the pharmaceutical giant's patent protecting the once-daily dosing regimen of rivaroxaban is invalid for lack of inventive step. The decision affects Irish patent EP (IE) 1 845 961, which covers the dosing schedule for the active ingredient in Xarelto, Bayer's blockbuster anticoagulant that generated €3.5 billion in global sales in 2024.
Justice Rory Mulcahy handed down the judgment on June 25, 2025, following a 14-day trial that included detailed cross-examination of four expert witnesses. The case, initiated by generic manufacturer Sandoz in May 2024, represents part of a broader European challenge to Bayer's patent protection for rivaroxaban, which treats thromboembolic disorders.
Patent Validity Challenge
The central issue before the court was whether the patent was invalid for obviousness, requiring assessment of whether the once-daily dosing invention would have been apparent to a person skilled in the art at the patent's priority date. The patent was set to expire on January 19, 2026.
Justice Mulcahy determined that "the skilled team would have been motivated to investigate once-daily dosing, and would not have been dissuaded from so doing by the costs and uncertainty of clinical trials." The court further concluded that "once-daily dosing was obvious to try and would have considered that it had a reasonable prospect of success ie of being both effective and safe."
The ruling hinged on prior art evidence from the 45th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Haematology held in San Diego in December 2003. The court found that two prior art documents containing phase I study data could be read together, with one document expressly referencing another. Crucially, one document known as 'Harder' provided an express suggestion that rivaroxaban might be suitable for once-daily dosing.
Secondary Evidence Impact
The court also considered secondary evidence consisting of documents relating to Bayer's internal development of once-daily rivaroxaban dosing. These documents, published after the patent's priority date, supported Sandoz's expert position that the assay described in the Harder study provided motivation to progress once-daily dosing development.
Justice Mulcahy noted that these secondary documents "further undermined Bayer's experts' criticisms of the Harder study data," strengthening the case for patent invalidity.
Confidentiality Battle
In a parallel proceeding, Bayer sought to maintain confidentiality over 25 documents from the 1,012 documents produced during discovery, arguing they contained sensitive information about internal development processes and clinical trials. However, the court rejected this application in a separate judgment delivered as [2025] IEHC 500.
The court found that Bayer had "made no effort to identify with any particularity what it is in the confidential trial documents which it claims is worthy of protection." Justice Mulcahy concluded that what Bayer sought to protect was "a small body of documents which reveal, overall, that Bayer's process for developing the Patent was precisely what the experts would expect it to have been."
The court determined that the documentation "cannot be said to meet the definition of trade secrets" because "the information about Bayer's internal development process revealed by the documents has become known to those within the circles who normally deal with this type of information."
Strategic Implications for European Litigation
The decision carries significant implications beyond Ireland's borders. Dublin-based patent expert Karen Gallagher of Pinsent Masons noted that "the decisions are significant as they highlight the strategic importance of expert cross examination and discovery in Irish proceedings in broader European patent litigation strategy."
The confidentiality ruling confirms that discovery documents lose their confidential nature once opened in court, including through inclusion in expert reports. This development means that information from the Irish proceedings may now be referenced in parallel patent challenges across other European jurisdictions where generic manufacturers are challenging the same patent.
The judgment contained criticism of Bayer's expert witnesses, including noted shifts in their evidence between witness statements and cross-examination. The court also drew inferences from experts' failure to reassess their positions based on information disclosed in discovery documents.
Rapid Judicial Process
The case demonstrates the efficiency of Irish patent litigation, progressing from filing to trial in under one year, with judgment delivered just four weeks after trial conclusion. This timeline reflects Irish judges' awareness of the urgency required in patent revocation proceedings, particularly given the limited remaining patent term.
The judgment was initially kept confidential pending Bayer's confidentiality application but was published in redacted form on September 23, 2025, following the court's rejection of the protective measures request. Bayer has filed an appeal of the merits judgment, and the redacted publication will remain in effect pending that determination.
