The fundamental question which types of products are amenable to SPC protection and which types of marketing authorizations allow the filing of SPCs has aroused much controversy in Europe, and reached a climax when the CJEU in its judgment Boston Scientific (C-527/17) of 25 October 2018 denied the grant of SPCs on the basis of…
Why would anyone want to have their own supplementary protection certificate (SPC) revoked? – The answer is, quite simply, Article 3(c). Under Article 3(c) of Regulation (EC) 469/2009 on SPCs for medicinal products (and, likewise, under Article 3(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) 1610/96 on SPCs for plant protection products), an SPC shall be granted only if…
On March 27th, 2018, the Court of Appeal of Paris issued a decision on withdrawal of the seizure order on the grounds that the principle of impartiality had been violated since the patent attorneys (“CPIs”) assisting the bailiff wrote a report on the probability of the infringement annexed at the seizure request. It will thus…
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…
The French National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) has just dispelled doubts by means of an official statement( https://www.inpi.fr/fr/nationales/communique-relatif-au-calcul-de-la-date-d-expiration-des-certificats-complementaires-de-protection ) it is now possible for holders of a supplementary protection certificate (SPC), issued in France before October 6, 2015, to require extension of their protection duration. The conditions are simple: (1) the SPC shall still be in…
By Gregory Bacon Yes, you read that right. Thirteen years after the House of Lords had firmly shut the door on any notion of a doctrine extending the scope of patent protection outside the claims, the UK Supreme Court in yesterday’s judgment in Actavis v Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48 reversed gear and reintroduced a…
Our previous post of June 2014 “Patent revocation actions in France: mind the slot! ” presented and criticized the decision of 25 April 2013 of the tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 3rd chamber, 1st section, Evinerude v. Giraudeau and Aair Lichens, applying to patent revocation actions the new time limitation period of five years adopted by the…
On 26 March 2015 the Landgericht Düsseldorf rendered a judgment granting an injunction based on the finding of infringement of an SEP by sales of smartphones implementing NFC – Near Field Communication according to an ETSI standard (France Brevet vs. HTC – Landgericht Düsseldorf 4b O 140/13). Defendant’s FRAND-defense was rejected by the Court because…
When does prior private use give a party the right to continue using the invention? Any person may claim personal possession on the ground of Article L. 613-7 of the French Intellectual Property Code providing that said person proves possession of the invention prior to the filing date or priority date of the patent. In…
The non patent eligibility of a new dosage for the same disease was reiterated by a decision issued by the tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 3rd chamber, 3rd section, handed down on 5 December 2014 in the infringement proceedings between Akzo Nobel NV, MSD OSS BV and MSD France SAS, on the one hand, and Teva Santé…
