The Court held that Pfizer’s Norwegian patent for use of sildenafil (a PDE 5 inhibitor) for treatment of erectile dysfunction was inventive. Although the court did not consider it inventive to test PDE V inhibitors for the treatment of erectile dysfunction as such, it held that the skilled person in so testing was confronted with…
The Supreme Administrative Court –overruled the Patent Office (PO) denying AstraZeneca’s application for a supplementary protection certificate (SPC), because the PO should have applied § 77(2) – instead of §79 – of the Transitional and Closing Provisions of the Act amending the Bulgarian Patents Act, which does not contains any requirements relating to the product’s…
In a judgment handed down on 11 November 2011, the Spanish Supreme Court has rejected an appeal filed by four Spanish pharmaceutical companies against a judgment from the Court of Appeal of Barcelona (Section 15), which had rejected a revocation action filed against patent EP 409,281 (Calcium salt of Atorvastatin) owned by Warner-Lambert. Applying the…
On 11 November 2011 the IP Chamber of the Court of Rome granted the motion for preliminary injunction requested by Novartis AG and Novartis Farma S.p.A. against Mylan S.p.A. on the basis of Novartis’ Italian valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide SPC, the active ingredients in Novartis’ Co-Diovan medicinal product (which is marketed in Italy as Co-Tareg). The…
by Dr. Ulrich Pross, rospatt osten pross Sec. 522 Civil Procedure Act (CPA) provided that courts competent to hear appeals on fact (Berufungsgerichte) can and must reject an appeal (Berufung) immediately without hearing if – the appeal has no chance of success, – the case is not of fundamental significance, and – neither the development…
The creation of a Unified Patent Litigation System seems to have a lot of political momentum these days, with one proposal following the other at fairly short intervals. This blog discusses the latest Council Presidency proposal of a draft agreement on a Unified Patent Court and draft Statute of 26 October 2011. While a lot of desirable progress has been made, the current draft agreement is still far from being ready for signature and requires both thorough consideration and amendment in several quite important aspects, not least as regards finances.
On 20 September 2011, in a patent infringement case, the French Cour de cassation issued an important decision in which, for the first time, it refers to and relies on “the principle according to which a person may not contradict themselves to the detriment of another person“, i.e. on the estoppel. With this decision, the French supreme…
With this groundbreaking decision of the CJEU, the parties entitled to injunctive relief are provided with the opportunity to obtain not only an enforceable injunction, but if the injunction is violated, they can also ask the original court to impose disciplinary fines on the defendant in a simple, fast and cost-efficient manner and then enforce these fines in other EU member states, as a rule at the domicile of the defendant.
On 6 October 2011, Commercial Court number 5 of Barcelona handed down a judgment that has revisited the fine border between the safe territory of so-called “preparatory acts” and the prohibited region of “offers for sale”. MSD filed a patent infringement action against a Spanish company that had obtained marketing authorisation and price to market…
Patentability of an invention is not excluded by the mere fact that the only feature of the patent claim not comprised in the state of the art is a dosage regime. Click here for the full text of this case. A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.
