There are currently two referrals on SPC law pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), both of which concern the interpretation of Article 3(c) of the SPC Regulation (EC) 469/2009. This provision essentially ensures that the same person cannot obtain more than one SPC for the same product (active ingredient), which…
This post perhaps is a bit off topic since it concerns parallel imports and trademark rights. Nevertheless it could be interesting for the readers since it relates to the the pharma industry. Background It is well established EU case law that a parallel importer of medicinal products may only replace the original package if it…
Introduction A key mechanism in patent litigation and specifically for generics is the concept of “launch at risk”. In short the concept means that a product is launched prior to the expiry of a patent despite the risk that the patent proprietor in such case could initiate infringement proceedings which often includes requests for a…
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…
Beamocular brought proceedings against C-Rad, alleging that Beamocular had the superior right to an Invention made by K.M. who was at the time an employee of C-Rad. The Swedish Patent and Market Court of Appeals confirmed that the primary work duties of K.M. did not constitute research activities and therefore the Invention was not a…
In February 2014, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (“MSD”) brought proceedings against Paranova Läkemedel AB (“Paranova”), alleging that Paranova was violating MSD’s right as an exclusive licensee of the European patent EP 0 595 935 (“EP 935”) by taking preparatory measures for parallel importation. MSD applied for a permanent injunction and corrective measures as well…
by Dominic Adair Following an exciting opening ceremony on Sunday evening featuring Brazilian dancers, caipirinha cocktails and black bean soup, the AIPPI’s 2015 World Congress in Rio de Janeiro began in earnest yesterday. The agenda for day 1 started with the customary round of Executive Committee meetings (followed by opportunities for a networking lunch) and…
By Kristian Fredrikson, Dephi and Jan Lindberg, Trust Ltd. This time I want to introduce a fellow author from Sweden, Kristian Fredrikson, who promised to write about this interesting recent decision from the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen 18 June 2015, case no B6341-13). It does not concern patents per se but an infringer’s liability for…
This time we take a look at various decisions that share one thing in common — piercing the corporate veil doctrine. Even if these rulings are not purely patent law cases, they will definitely have influence on forthcoming litigations. First, let us look at the recent Finnish Supreme Court case 2015:17, in which the defendant…
The Stockholm District Court found that the product did not fall under the wording of the patent claim or the doctrine of equivalence. During the application procedure before EPO, the patent holder had intentionally limited the scope of protection in order to avoid prior art. The features added to the patent claim during the application…
