Yesterday, 25 April 2018, AG Wathelet has handed down his opinion in the Teva v Gilead reference (Case C-121/17) suggesting that the question should be answered as follows: “The fact that a substance or combination of substances falls within the scope of protection of the basic patent is a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement for…

The Bulgarian Supreme Administrative Court upheld a first instance judgment annulling the decision of the Bulgarian Patent Office to refuse the grant of a supplementary protection certificate for a medical product where the active ingredient was functionally defined in the patent claims rather than through its structural formula. A full summary of this case has…

Bulgaria has deposited its instrument of ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement at the Council of the European Union. It is the tenth member state to complete the ratification process. The Bulgarian Parliament had ratified the UPCA at the start of April 2016. Earlier, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal and Sweden…

The UPC Preparatory Committee has announced the selection of judges will start soon. During its 15th meeting, on 14 April 2016 in Luxembourg, agreement was reached on the recruitment package. In its report on the meeting the Preparatory Committee writes this means ‘adverts for judicial appointments can be advertised in May. The exact date of…

The Bulgarian Patent Office refused to issue a patent for an invention claimed as a medical use because the subject matter constituted a method for treatment of the human body and therefore it was unpatentable under Art. 7(2) of the Bulgarian Patents and Utility Models Registration Act (“PUMRA”).  The decision of the Patent Office was…

The Bulgarian Patent Office refused to issue a supplementary protection certificate for a medical product comprising three components as one of them was not within the scope of protection of the basic patent. The decision of the Patent Office was first annulled by the first instance court but subsequently upheld by the Bulgarian Supreme Administrative Court….

AstraZeneca filed a request with the Patent Office (PO) for the publication in the PO’s official bullet of a court judgment invalidating a previous PO’s decision regarding the termination of one of AstraZeneca’s patents. The PO denied AstraZeneca’s request for publication due to a pending procedure for the issuance of a supplementary protection certificate (SPC)…

The Supreme Administrative Court –overruled  the Patent Office (PO) denying AstraZeneca’s application for a supplementary protection certificate (SPC), because the PO should have applied § 77(2) – instead of §79 – of the Transitional and Closing Provisions of the Act amending the Bulgarian Patents Act, which does not contains any requirements relating to the product’s…

Vitreo’s patent application for ‘means for application of a vitreous body for the purposes of prevention and medical treatment of ophthalmic disorders’ was denied by the patent office, because the claimed invention was considered to be excluded from patentability both as a method for medical treatment of human beings or animals through therapy or surgery…