In the framework of preliminary injunction proceedings instituted by AstraZeneca against the Italian subsidiary of Stada, EG S.p.A., by decision of 11 – 14 February 2011, the IP Chamber of the Court of Turin issued an interesting order concerning the application of Art. 68 (1bis) IP Code, according to which “companies intending to manufacture pharmaceutical…
On 23 February 2011 the Administrative Chamber of the “Audiencia Nacional” handed down an interesting judgment ordering the Administration to bear the damages caused by the erroneous price reduction of EVOPAD®, a medicament marketed by JANSSEN-CILAG comprised of Galantamine. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows: The Ministry of Health reduced by…
As previously discussed, the English Court of Appeal has clearly stated its support for judicial collaboration facilitating de facto harmonisation of patent law in Europe (Grimme Landmaschinenfabrik GmbH v Scott [2010] EWCA Civ 1110). However, in a recent decision in the English Patents Court (Lundbeck v Norpharma and Infosint [2011] EWHC 907), Floyd J. expressed…
In this case the claimant filed an application for a supplementary protection certificate (SPC), however the application was refused by the Lithuanian patent office. Appeals before national courts were unsuccessful. The Supreme Court referred the question whether the six-month period for application for an SPC begins on the date of granting Community marketing authorization, or…
by Stephan von Petersdorff-Campen In their posts of 21 Oct. 2010 and 28 Jan. 2011, Hetti Hilge and Max v. Rospatt reported a difference of opinion between German courts on the question of whether or not there is a requirement of “urgency” in cases of ex-parte inspection orders following the so-called “Düsseldorfer Besichtigungspraxis” (Düsseldorf inspection…
On 15 March 2011, in a dispute opposing the companies E.I Du Pont de Nemours and Merck and companies Mylan and Qualimed, the Cour d’Appel of Paris confirmed the order handed down on 12 February 2010 by the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris, subject-matter of a previous post. The American company E.I. Du Pont de…
In a judgment dated 17 March 2011 reported at [2011] EWHC 583 (Pat), the English High Court has upheld certain claims of two patents (deriving from the same ultimate parent application) for the formulation of Ethinylestradiol (“EE”) and Drospirenone (“DSP”) used in contraception. The patents in issue belonged to Bayer Schering Pharma AG. The Hungarian…
The so-called “person skilled in the art” is a fictitious character in charge of, among other functions, assessing whether or not an invention is obvious with respect to the state of the art. For the experts appointed by the parties to be able to illustrate to the Court what would have been the understanding of…
With a judgement of 12 February 2009 the German “Bundesgerichtshof” has dealt with the question whether defendant of a patent infringement action shall be allowed to defend against the claims raised by a patent owner by pointing to another patent which is older than the litigious patent and by further saying that this older patent…
By final judgment of November 18, 2010 (Xa ZR 149/07, published in Mitt. 2011, 66 (in German only)), the German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) decided on two interesting issues in nullity appeal proceedings regarding the German patent DE 101 41 650 pertaining to a patch containing the opioid fentanyl, a strong analgesic drug. Firstly,…
