In the Sanofi v. Teva ruling of 10 July 2014, the Court of Milan clarified the test for abuse of process, and denied an award of damages allegedly caused by the issue of a preliminary injunction which was later lifted due to the revocation of the enforced SPC.
The case concerned the Italian part of the irbesartan saga, in which Sanofi was engaged in several countries in the enforcement of its CoAprovel SPCs, covering irbesartan + hydrochlorothiazide. In the aftermath of the Medeva/Georgetown decisions, Sanofi obtained preliminary injunctions against generic CoAprovel in several jurisdictions, on the assumption that the combination irbesartan + hydrochlorothiazide was “specified in the wo [...]
The Italian Supreme Court recently (and surprisingly) said that inventors must be named as co-defendants in revocation actions.
In 2010 I wrote a post concerning the requirement to name inventors as co-defendants in Italian revocation actions. I reported that the Court of Appeal of Milan had established a principle whereby named inventors had to be called in revocation actions and, if they were not, proceedings could not reach the stage of decision. This was based on the then in place provision of Article 122 (4) of the of Italian IP Code, according to which “Any action aimed at the revocation of an industrial property title shall be brought against all persons listed in the register as r [...]
By ruling of 21 February 2014, the Court of Turin decided a case between the US corporation Rovi and a number of Italian consumers electronics manufacturers. These had produced / imported set-top-boxes equipped with Electronic Programme Guides (EPG) that allegedly made use of the Rovi EPG patents, although without being covered by the Rovi licensing scheme. The Turin Court ruling is interesting as it tackles – one of the very few in the Italian case law – the issue of software patentability, reaching conclusions opposite to those of the UK courts in the Rovi versus Virgin Media saga.
The case had commenced with the filing by the Italian manufacturers of a nullity action against patents [...]
In the last instance, the Consiglio di Stato (the Italian supreme administrative court) established that Pfizer did commit abuse of a dominant position while it obtained and enforced in Italy its SPC protection over latanoprost. While the news was spread a few weeks ago already (the decision is dated 14 January 2014), the reasons of the decision have just been made available (they bear the date of 12 February 2014).
It is sufficient to recall that in September 2012, the Regional Administrative Court – in reversing t [...]
In my earlier posts (here and here) I reported and commented on the first two phases of the Italian Pfizer antitrust case, in which the Italian Antitrust Authority (IAA) accused Pfizer of having abused of a dominant position by judicially enforcing patent rights against generic latanoprost in the Italian Courts. A small but potentially meaningful development now has to be reported while the case is being heard in the last instance by the Supreme Administrative Court, after appeal by the IAA against the decision of the Regional Administrative Court.
The story commenced in October 2010 and concerned the fact that Pfizer had obtained an SPC over latanoprost on the basis of the grant in 2009 of [...]
In an earlier post, I reported the news that a new piece of legislation (the so called “Balduzzi Decree”, Law No. 189/12 of 8 November 2012 confirming Law Decree 158/12 of 13 September 2012 – a consolidated version of the Decree is available here) introduced a rule which some have already labelled as “reimbursement price linkage”. In substance, according to Article 11 of the Balduzzi Decree, the Italian regulatory Authority will refrain from granting a reimbursable price to approved generic drugs when the reference product is still covered by a patent or SPC.
Last week, AIFA officially confirmed that it will apply such a rule, by issuing a communication to all pharmaceutical compan [...]