Who may bring an action for patent revocation? Such is the fundamental question which has been submitted to the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris in a case whose factual circumstances made it very interesting. On 13 September 2010, Omnipharm Limited served a summons on Merial to appear before the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris to…

On 15 March 2011, in a dispute opposing the companies E.I Du Pont de Nemours and Merck and companies Mylan and Qualimed, the Cour d’Appel of Paris confirmed the order handed down on 12 February 2010 by the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris, subject-matter of a previous post. The American company E.I. Du Pont de…

The patentee (Claimant) filed a request for an interim injunction against the Defendant, ordering it to stop using the patented method, stop selling or importing Valsacor film coated tablets or any other products that would infringe the European patent, to seize the mentioned tablets, and to order Defendant to pay a penalty. The court rejected…

The company governed by the laws of Switzerland, Novartis AG, is the holder of patent EP 0 443 983 entitled “Acyl compounds”, whose subject-matter is a group of antihypertensive compounds, including valsartan, pharmaceutical preparations containing them and processes for the preparation of these compounds. , This patent, filed on 12 February 1991, was to have expired on 12 February 2011. However, Novartis…

H. Lundbeck A/S (hereinafter referred to as Lundbeck) is the holder of European patent EP 0 347 066 entitled “new enantiomers and their isolation”, which designates France and was filed on 1 June 1989; it claims priority of a British patent dated 14 June 1988. The invention relates to the two new enantiomers of the antidepressant drug Citalopram and the use of…

By a judgement dated 28 September 2010, the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris held that claims 1, 2 and 3 of the French designation of Merck & Co. Ltd’s Patent EP 0 724 444 were invalid for being excluded from the scope of patentability in accordance with the provisions of Article 53(c) EPC 2000 (former Article 52  (4) EPC 1973). The court held that the invention the subject-matter of main claim 1 was only a new dosage regime ranging from 0.05 to 1 mg) of an already known compound (finasteride) in an already known therapeutic application (the treatment of hyperandrogenic conditions and especially the treatment of androgenic alopecia). A mere new dosage regime is not a second medical use but a therapeutic method excluded from patentability pursuant to Article 53  (c) EPC 2000.

During the past 9 months in Denmark, the pharmaceuticals manufacturer and patentee, H. Lundbeck A/S, has obtained two interlocutory injunctions in Denmark against wholesalers marketing generic versions of Escitalopram. In both cases H. Lundbeck A/S argued successfully that the patent-in-suit fulfilled the conditions of the Danish Patents Act § 64a (similar to the Art 35…