Browse Options
Norway: Idenix v. Gilead, District Court of Olso, 12-155575TVI-OTIR/01 and 13-170456TVI-OTIR/01, 21 March 2014

Both parties’ patents in dispute relate to chemical compounds that are appropriate for use in pharmaceutical drugs, in particular for the treatment of flaviviridae infections such as hepatitis C virus infections. Ruling that Idenix’ patent lacks a sufficiently clear description, and that Gilead’s patent is novel and inventive, the Oslo District Court declared Idenix’ patent invalid and handed down the judgment in favour of Gilead.

A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.

No Mercy: Exhaustion of patent rights and burden of proof

The use and circulation of a product which has been put on the market by the patentee or a third party acting with the consent of the patentee (e.g. a licensee) cannot be prohibited by the patentee anymore. This concept of exhaustion is not only applicable to the territory of Germany, but to the entire territory of the EU and EEA, i.e. the common European market. This Europe wide exhaustion of patent rights is the basis for parallel imports, in particular for parallel imports of pharmaceuticals and plant protection products.

Being a defense, the burden of prove showing that the product has been put onto the market by the patentee or a licensee lies with the defendant. However, applying this [...]

Medeva and the Limitation of Composition Claims

In Medeva (C-322/10 of 24 November 2011) the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had ruled that a Supplementary Protection Certificate relating to a combination of active ingredients can only be granted in view of Art. 3(a) of the Regulation (EC) No. 469/2009, if the active ingredients are “specified” in the wording of the claims of the basic patent relied on. Otherwise, in the view of the CJEU, the necessary protection in the sense of Art. 3(a) of the Regulation does not exist. Since it remains fully unclear what the CJEU means with “specified”, a term alien to patent law, this question meanwhile has become the subject matter of two new referrals to the CJEU, i.e. C-443/12 [...]

Leflunomid (Leflunomide), Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), 24 July 2012

and Bernd Kröger.

A combination of two pharmaceutical ingredients, i.e. leflunomide and teriflunomide is to be considered obvious if the person skilled in the art uses an obvious process to obtain leflunomide that automatically results in – even with a certain delay – both components due to a chemical reaction.

Click here for the full text of this case.

A summary of this case will be posted on

Legro Gartneri A/S v. Svegro AB, Stockholms tingsrätt (Stockholm District Court), 26 April 2012

The Stockholm District Court held the Swedish part of a European patent concerning a method of growing two or more plants invalid, due to lack of inventive step. Despite requests for limitations by the proprietor the patent was declared invalid in its entirety. Infringement, exceptions to patentability and prior use rights were also considered by the Court.

A summary of this case will be posted on

EveryMed AB v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Svea Court of Appeal Stockholm (Svea Hovrätt), 27 June 2012

In a combined patent infringement and nullity case, the Svea Court of Appeal upheld the validity of Roche Diagnostics’ European patent as far as Sweden was concerned, but held, other than the District Court, that the alleged infringer did not infringe the patent at issue. The Court of Appeal further held that a patent can only be declared partially (in)valid if the patentee has requested a limitation of the claims. Without such a request, the entire patent must be declared invalid.

A summary of this case will be posted on

Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...