Mundipharma v. Sandoz, District Court The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag), 7 April 2010
The District Court of The Hague granted Mundipharma a provisional injunction against Sandoz for infringement of its patent for a controlled release oxycodon formulation. The District Court suspended its decision on the validity and infringement of the patent in the main action until a final decision has been rendered in the opposition proceedings.
The Court extensively deals with Sandoz’ numerous invalidity arguments. Of special interest are the Court’s considerations on the use of disclaimers, specifically in light of the Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision G1/03.
Click here for the full text of this case. A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com.
[...]Dosage regime claims
- By Derk Visser, EIP
A second medical use claim can be based on a novel dosage regimen. In decision T317/95 a Board of Appeal decided that this type of claim was not allowable. It regarded the activity of administrating a medicine as a therapeutic treatment and, hence, an activity in a field excluded from patentability. Since the patent right must be in the industrial and commercial field, the distinguishing feature of the claim should not relate to non-commercial and non-industrial medical activities. However, closer inspection of the decision showed that the reasoning of the Board was in conflict with decision G5/83 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. In spite of this, several other decisions refused claims based [...]
The Losartan Case in Belgium: One SPC Too Far?
In the beginning of 2010, Merck Sharp & Dohme (hereafter “Merck”) and E.I. Du Pont de Nemours (hereafter “Du Pont”) on the one hand and Mylan on the other hand entailed in a fight concerning the launch of a generic version of Cozaar Plus®. The Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) of Cozaar Plus®, a combination product consisting of losartan and HCTZ, would expire on 15 February 2010, but Merck and Du Pont tried to prevent the marketing of generic versions of Cozaar Plus® by invoking the SPC for Cozaar®, the monoproduct consisting of Losartan only. In Belgium and France, this case led to very diverging judgments on the interpretation of the SPC Regulation.
Ever heard of Düsseldorf?
Where do you come from?
Düsseldorf.
Dussel-What?
Düsseldorf.
Aaaaaha. Where again is it?
China.
Interesting.
Nebivolol, Supreme Court Austria (Oberster Gerichtshof), 19 November 2009
The Austrian Supreme Court decided that a patent owner is free to base an infringement action on a limited version of its claims, irrespectively of initiating formal limitation proceedings.
An application for cost reimbursement by the Main Association of the Austrian Social Insurance Institutions, which contained a declaration of the price and the availability of a generic product, constitutes an offering for sale and such application can therefore be prevented by the patent holder until patent expiry.
Foreign decisions only have effect for the respective countries, but are admissible means of evidence to support an invalidity defence in Austrian provisional proceedings.
Click here for the f [...]
Should patent prosecution be taken into account when interpreting the claims?
One of the most disputed topics within the patent community is whether or not the patent prosecution history should be taken into account when interpreting the scope of protection of the claims. Whereas U.S. Courts have traditionally accepted the so-called “file-wrapper estoppel” or “patent prosecution estoppel” defence, the answer on this side of the Atlantic is far less clear.
To date, the judgment that has addressed this question most thoroughly in Spain is the Judgment of 17 January 2008 from Provincial Cout of Barcelona (Olanzapina), from which the following paragraphs may be transcribed:
“There may in fact be cases in which, although involving a variation that does not alter the funct [...]
