One of the remedies available to a patent holder against a patent infringer is an injunction to prevent future. Two types are generally available: a preliminary injunction and an injunction in proceedings on the merits. A preliminary injunction is a provisional measures which has to be confirmed in merits proceedings or otherwise ceases to have effect. In European patent law a (provisional) cross-border injunction is possible: a court in one European state can prohibit infringement in several other European states.
The issue of whether obtaining a marketing authorisation before the expiry of a patent covering the product that the marketing authorisation concerns will infringe upon the right of the patentee has now been settled by the Danish Supreme Court: In December 2006 Teva filed for a marketing authorisation for a product that Teva during subsequent…
As previously report on this blog (29 June 2011), on 20 June 2011 Floyd J. granted an ex parte interim injunction, sometimes called a “temporary restraining order” preventing Teva UK Limited (and two distributors, “Phoneix” and “AAH”) from advertising, offering for sale, selling or supplying its generic atorvastatin product (sold by Pfizer under the brand…
The readers will recall that one of the requirements for obtaining preliminary injunctions introduced by Directive 2004/48 (the so-called “Enforcement Directive”) is proving that there is an “imminent” threat of infringement. In cases dealing with the pharmaceutical sector, Spanish Courts have interpreted “imminent” to mean that the defendant is in an objective position to launch…
In its 2006 decision in the matter called GAT/LuK the ECJ held that Article 22-4 of the Brussels Regulation – which provides for exclusive national jurisdiction regarding the validity of patents and other registered rights – applies to all proceedings relating to the validity of a patent, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by…
One of the possible courses of action open to patentees when they suspect that a competitor may be preparing the launch of a product that may infringe a patent in force is to send a warning letter. If the response is evasive, this would normally help the patentee to prove that there is an “imminent”…
The Court of Appeal Duesseldorf held that, provided that the alleged infringer proves a legitimate interest in confidentiality, the presentation of the expert opinion to the patentee itself depends on whether the inspection confirms infringement. If the expert opinion confirms infringement, and if the court has no expertise in the relevant technical field, it may…
The Swiss Federal Supreme Court held in a recent decision that the Swiss company Teva Pharma AG had to bear the court costs and reimburse Novartis’s attorneys’ fees in preliminary injunction proceedings because of Teva’s contradictory conduct in this case. The decision was based on the following facts: On March 16, 2010, Teva was granted…
Combination products (containing two or more active ingredients) raise difficult questions with respect to supplementary protection certificates (SPCs). Can a SPC be based on the market authorisation (MA) of a combination product, if the patent only covers one active ingredient? On 13 July 2011, the Advocate General at the CJEU delivered her Opinion on the…
AstraZeneca enforced its patent for an asymmetrical synthetic route to obtain esomeprazole in Denmark. The API manufacturer of the allegedly infringing pharmaceutical had developed its own- independent synthetic route with a significantly lower yield and had applied for a European patent for that process. AstraZenaca alleged that the detection of trace amounts (ppb) of certain…
On 20 June 2011, Floyd J. granted a temporary restraining order preventing restraining Teva UK Limited (and two distribution companies, “Phoenix” and “AAH”) from advertising, offering for sale, selling or supplying its generic atorvastatin pending full hearing of the Warner-Lambert’s application for an interim injunction, listed for 11 July 2011. Warner-Lambert (a subsidiary of Pfizer…
