The Administrative Law Division of the Council of State holds that the District Court has rightfully found that the Patent Office was not obligated to issue a Supplementary Protection Certificate for the medicinal product cetuximab. Article 73 (1) of the Dutch Patents Act 1995 on indirect infringement, does not in all circumstances protect the patentee…
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…
The District Court of The Hague held that all claims of Lundbeck’s escalitopram patent were invalid for lack of inventive step. The District Court nullified the patent and also called the Dutch Supplementary Protection Certificate which was based upon the patent null. The District Court’s decision contains many references to the 4 May 2007 decision…
The District Court of The Hague held that all claims of Lunbeck’s escalitopram patent were invalid for lack of inventive step. The District Court nullified the patent and also called the Dutch Supplementary Protection Certificate which was based upon the patent null. The District Court’s decision contains many references to the 4 May 2007 decision…
The Dutch Supreme Court stated that the patentee still has an interest in this supreme appeal proceeding after amendment of the patent pursuant to Articles 105a-c EPC 2000 subsequent to coming into force of EPC 2000 and the Appeals Court’s decision to nullify the patent. Although the Appeals Court in subsequent proceedings should take the…
Lack of novelty by re-working prior art requires that the re-works must inevitably lead to results falling within the claim of the patent at issue. If choices have to be made for the re-working process, the result is not inevitable.A possible breach of Article 84 EPC (clarity) does not lead to nullity. The Court states…
In this judgment the Court of Appeal considers the appellant’s claim for invalidation of the patent inadmissible as he did not call the co-proprietor of the patent to join the proceedings. While considered valid on substantive grounds, the claim in question needs to be rephrased to fulfill the industrial applicability. As nullity of the patent…
