Combination from two lists/Nestlé, European Patent Office (EPO Board of Appeal), 31 July 2009
- By Bart van Weezenbeek,
for Kluwer IP Cases
The selection of explicitly disclosed borderline values defining several (sub)ranges, in order to form a new (narrower) subrange, is not contestable under Article 123 (2) EPC when the ranges belong to the same list. However, the combination of an individual range from this list with another individual range from a second list that relates to a different feature, is not considered to be disclosed in the application as filed, unless there is a clear pointer to such a combination. Identifying the ranges in the two lists as ‘especially preferred’ is a clear indication for the intended parallel convergence of the ranges of the two lists, and such a combination does satisfy the requirements of [...]
Fluvastatina Granada, Commercial Court of Granada (Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Granada), 30 July 2009
On 30 July 2009, the Commercial Court of Granada ordered an ex parte preliminary injunction against two companies that had obtained authorisation to market generics of sustained-release pharmaceutical compositions of Fluvastatin in Spain. Interestingly, on 27 April 2009, Commercial Court number 3 of Madrid had rejected a request for a preliminary injunction against other companies that were planning to market the same product. One of the factors that led the Court of Madrid to reject this request was the fact that opposition proceedings were pending before the European Patent Office, where many documents had been cited against the inventive step of the patent in question. However, in its jud [...]
BPO v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Supreme Administrative Court (Върховен Административен Съд), 24 July 2009
- By Ivan Marinov,
for Kluwer IP Cases
The Bulgarian Patent Office (BPO) revoked patent BG 61365 and published an announcement of the revocation in its official bulletin. The revocation was appealed by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LR. The Court held the decision of the BPO invalid and annulled it as the decision was not in written form and the mere publication in the official bulletin, being only a declarative action, was not sufficient to imply that a valid decision had been adopted.
The full text and summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com
[...]Agfa v. Xingraphics, District Court The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag), 22 July 2009
- By Daan de Lange, Brinkhof,
for Kluwer IP Cases
In these infringement proceedings initiated by Agfa against Xingraphics the Court held Agfa’s patent valid and dismissed Xingraphics cross border declaration of non-infringement due to lack of jurisdiction. Agfa’s infringement claim was dismissed as it was not sufficiently substantiated. Agfa was not allowed to supplement its evidence, since it had failed in a previous stage to submit its evidence timely. The sending of warning letters by the patentee is allowed, unless the patentee knows or should know in advance that it cannot substantiate infringement.
Click here for the full text of this case. A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com.
[...]Atorvastatin, Provincial Court Barcelona (Audiencia Provincial Barcelona), 20 July 2009
The Barcelona Court of Appeal confirmed a preliminary injunction ordered by Commercial Court number 4 of Barcelona on 9 June 2008 preventing the launch of several generics of Atorvastatin. One of the main arguments raised by the defendants in their appeal was that the company that had filed the application for a preliminary injunction did not have locus standi. Although this company had obtained a licence agreement from the patentee, the defendants alleged that such licence agreement had been fraudulently executed. According to the defendants, since the licensee was acquiring the active ingredient from one of the patentee’s affiliates, the patentee’s rights would have been ‘exhausted’, t [...]
Novartis v. J&J, High Court of England and Wales (Patents Court) High Court of England and Wales (Patents Court), 10 July 2009
- By Robert Burrows,
for Kluwer IP Cases
The High Court dismissed Novartis’ claim for infringement of its EP(UK) patent for ophthalmically compatible extended wear contact lenses. Although Novartis established that the defendants’ product falls within certain claims of the patent, and successfully resisted Johnson & Johnson’s novelty and obviousness attacks, the patent was found invalid for insufficiency. The Court held it would involve a research programme to identify formulations which are useful for producing an ophthalmically compatible lens suitable for extended wear. The UK Court’s finding of insufficiency is of particular interest, as in parallel proceedings in the Netherlands, the Dutch Court rejected the insufficiency atta [...]
