Revocation of a patent concerns a mechanism which provides for an inter partes review of the validity of a. At the European Patent Office a patent can be revoked by the Opposition Division or Boards of Appeal. A notice of opposition has to be filed within nine months from the publication of the mention of the grant of a European patent. In 2000 Article 105a was introduced in the European Patent Convention, providing centralised limitation and revocation procedures at the level of the EPO, which allows the patent proprietor either to have the claims of his granted patent limited or to have the whole patent revoked for all its designated states. The effect of this central revocation is that the patent in question is deemed never to have existed. It is revoked ex tunc.
Two recent decisions of the Italian Supreme Court (no. 21835 of 14 October 2009 and no. 23414 of 4 November 2009) have tackled the issue of sufficiency in a peculiar manner, departing from previous case law. In both decisions, it is stated that “the protection granted by a patent presupposes, besides the requirements of novelty…
By decision no. 6967/2009 of 14 May 2009, the IP Chamber of the Court of Milan found for the invalidity of a patent claiming the second medical use of a known pharmaceutical product for lack of inventive step. This decision is remarkable for at least two reasons. Firstly, the Court departed from the findings of…
The District Court of The Hague granted Mundipharma a provisional injunction against Sandoz for infringement of its patent for a controlled release oxycodon formulation. The District Court suspended its decision on the validity and infringement of the patent in the main action until a final decision has been rendered in the opposition proceedings. The Court…
In case of parallel proceedings before a national court and the Boards of Appeal, parties should inform both tribunals of this position as early as possible. In order to avoid duplication of proceedings, the parties should ask the appropriate tribunal for acceleration. Whether acceleration is requested by one party, or both or all parties in…
In these infringement proceedings before the Preliminary Relief Judge of the District Court of The Hague the defendant argued that the claimants should not have received an SPC for valaciclovir, since not valaciclovir, but its parent drug aciclovir is the ‘active ingredient’ Because aciclovir is not protected by the basic patent, and the market authorization…
According to the District Court of The Hague, Administrative division, Article 19 (2) of the SPC Regulation on medicinal products prohibits the ‘opposition’ in a national procedure by a third party against the grant of a pediatric extension of the duration of a Supplementary Protection Certificate. Third parties may submit an application for revocation of…
In the case at hand, Olympus filed a petition for review against the decision of the Board of Appeal to revoke Olympus’ patent. Olympus argued that it had had no opportunity to comment on the grounds for this decision as it had never received the statement of the grounds of appeal and the invitation to…
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s finding that Aerotel’s Patent relating to a method of making pre-paid landline telephone calls was invalid for want of inventive step over the principal prior art (the WATS system). Having made this finding it was unnecessary to consider Aerotel’s other grounds of appeal.Further, Aerotel’s arguments of commercial…
The Hague District Court nullified Sepracor’s patent for compositions for treating allergic disorders using (-) cetirizine (levociterizine) on the basis of lack of inventive step. The Court considered that the person skilled in the art knows that the pharmaceutical efficacy of a racemic mixture generally can be attributed to one of the enantiomers. At the…
For an invention to be considered obvious it is usually necessary that there are additional incentives that go beyond the identification of the technical problem and lead the person skilled in the art to search the solution for this technical problem on the path of the invention. A full summary of this case has been…
