In its 30 January ruling in Generics (UK) and others v CMA, the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) in effect upheld the existing approach of the European Commission and EU General Court in relation to the assessment of so-called “reverse payment” patent settlements. The CJEU confirmed that settlements in which a generics manufacturer is paid…
Today, Advocate General (AG) Mr. Giovanni Pitruzzella handed down his opinion in the referral C-673/18 (Santen). The case concerns an SPC based on a second medical use/formulation patent and stems from a referral to the CJEU made by the Paris Court of Appeal with decision of 9 October 2018 in Santen v. INPI (see here…
The debate over standard-essential patents (SEPs) is typically distinguished as much by concerns over competition than issues of patent law per se. Erixon argues: ‘…SEP disputes are less concerned about the rights and boundaries of patents, and more about antitrust limits to market behavior.’ At the European level EU institutions acknowledge the policy concern that…
The injunction gap is a frequently discussed characteristic of those European jurisdictions, Hungary being one such country, whose patent litigation systems are bifurcated. In a preliminary injunction proceeding in Hungary the court does not assess the validity of the patent in suit, at least not simply at the level of arguments, although decisions on invalidity…
One of the features that render the European Union’s Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) unique in comparison to similar legal instruments in other jurisdictions, including the United States and Japan, is that there is no legal provision expressly calling for any specific relationship or agreement between the patent proprietor (and SPC applicant) on the one hand,…
In the field of supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) in the European Union, the majority of all CJEU referrals resolved to date have dealt with the interpretation of the – presumably simple – condition that an SPC can only be granted for an active ingredient (or a combination of active ingredients) that is “protected” by the…
The Court concluded that the compound darunavir was not protected by a patent within the sense of Art. 3 of the SPC directive because, following the CJEU decision in Teva v Gilead, it is necessary that the compound for which the SPC is granted can be specifically identified in the patent. Case date: 08 January…
The eagerly-awaited judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the SPC referral Abraxis Bioscience (C-443/17) has been handed down today. In the case underlying this referral, the UK IPO had refused an SPC application filed by Abraxis Bioscience for the product “paclitaxel formulated as albumin-bound nanoparticles” (nab-paclitaxel; marketed as Abraxane®)…
Regardless of whether someone intends to enforce their own supplementary protection certificate (SPC) or finds themself at the receiving end of an SPC infringement action, the question which grounds of invalidity justify the revocation of an SPC may become highly relevant. This question is all the more intriguing in light of the CJEU’s corresponding case…
In light of the Teva/Gilead-judgment handed down on 25 July 2018 by the CJEU (C-121/17) as well as the latest referral from the German Federal Patent Court dated 17 October 2017 in re Sitagliptin III (14 W (pat) 12/17), which is pending as C-650/17, Prof. Meier-Beck, the presiding Judge of the German Federal Supreme Court,…
