A new trial was granted so a manufacturer accused of infringing the patent can challenge its validity by presenting additional obviousness theories that the district court should not have disallowed. Case date: 29 March 2019 Case number: No. 17-2507 Court: United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit A full summary of this case has been published…
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 Higher Regional Court of Vienna confirmed that the “second medical use” of an already known substance, as required for patent protection, can be that the substance is used for a specific group of patients with specific effects. Case date: 11 May 2017 Case number: 34R113/16m Court: Higher Regional Court of Vienna A full summary of…
The UK Supreme Court today handed down its decision in Actavis v ICOS. The decision was unanimous, with Lord Hodge giving the only judgment. The case concerns two principal questions. First, how the test for obviousness applies to a dosage patent; and secondly, whether the Court of Appeal was entitled to reverse the judgment of…
The Supreme Court held that the mandatory arbitration court provided for litigation between patent holders and applicants for generic medicines does not have jurisdiction to decide, inter partes and incidenter tantum, the validity of a patent. The right of defence of the generic applicant is not disproportionally restricted because they can challenge the validity of…
A nullity action is still admissible after expiration of the patent if it provides the nullity plaintiff, who had been unsuccessful as defendant in infringement proceedings, the possibility of bringing an action for restitution against his conviction and if the nullity plaintiff declares that he intends to make use of this possibility (xref. X ZR…
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®)…
Claims for methods of administering beta-alanine to increase muscles’ working capacity were valid treatment claims, not merely directed to natural laws. Claims for the supplement products and means of making them were directed to specific formulations, not natural phenomena. Case date: 15 March 2019 Case number: No. 2018-129 Court: United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit…
The Constitutional Court held that the 30-day period to initiate mandatory arbitration proceedings against applicants for authorization to introduce generic medicines onto the market is a final (or expiration) term. Case date: 10 April 2018 Case number: 187/2018, 41/2017 Court: Constitutional Court of Portugal A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP…
The Finnish Supreme Court resolved in February 2019 on the matter of whether or not the preconditions for precautionary measures were at hand in a patent law infringement case. Firstly, the Court interpreted the Act regarding Preservation of Evidence in Civil Cases Concerning Intellectual Property Rights (344/2000, as amended). Moreover, the Court analysed the information…
