One of the issues which will be discussed at the next annual meeting of AIPPI, due to take place in Rio de Janeiro in October 2015, is Q244, entitled “Inventorship of multinational inventions.”
In today’s world, it is becoming increasingly frequent for inventions to be the outcome of teamwork conducted by persons from different jurisdictions. This, coupled with the lack of a universally-accepted concept of “inventor” and the “local first-filing requirement” contained in the laws of many countries, raises formidable challenges for applicants. Sometimes they are confronted with legal requirements from several countries which cannot be simultaneously fulfilled, which places applicants in an imp [...]
Our previous post of June 2014 “Patent revocation actions in France: mind the slot! ” presented and criticized the decision of 25 April 2013 of the tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 3rd chamber, 1st section, Evinerude v. Giraudeau and Aair Lichens, applying to patent revocation actions the new time limitation period of five years adopted by the statute № 2008-561 of 17 June 2008 for actions qualified, under French law classification, as personal actions or real actions based on movable assets: according to this decision, the five-year limitation period running from the date on which the plaintiff “becomes aware or should have been aware of the facts entitling him to start” [...]
On 25 July 2015, the Spanish Official State Gazette published the text of Act 24/2015, of 24 July 2015, on Patents (“New Patents Act” or “the new Law”), which is due to come into force on 1 April 2017. Although a blog is too short a place to discuss a law that has 186 articles, 10 “additional provisions”, 6 “transitory provisions”, 1 “derogatory provision”, and 9 “final provisions”, what follows is a short account of the aspects that the author finds of particular interest:
The first aspect deals with the examination and granting procedure, which has been changed completely. The New Patents Act has abandoned the “à la carte” examination procedure, whereby applicants were free to choose whet [...]
The Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court, appeal instance) just issued a court order on the admissibility of new prior art that the defendant discovered only in the second instance infringement proceedings. The defendant and appellant in the proceedings had requested a stay of the infringement appeal based on this new and relevant prior art until a decision in the parallel invalidity action will be rendered. Irrespective of the admissibility of the new citation in the parallel invalidity action, the infringement appeal court requested the defendant to provide sufficiently justified reasons for the late filing in order to admit the new citation.
Pursuant to the formal rules o [...]
In one of the ongoing Pregabalin diputes, the Danish specialty court for IPR, the Maritime and Commercial Court in Copenhagen, recently rendered a 50-pages decision in a PI-action filed by Warner-Lambert (“WL”) and Pfizer against Krka and the Danish Association of Pharmacies. The Danish Health Agency intervened in support of the Danish Association of Pharmacies.
WL applied for interlocutory injunctions to be granted against Krka and each of the 220 individually named pharmacies in Denmark.
The principal claim against Krka was a claim for an order according to which Krka would only be allowed to sell Pregabalin in Denmark if it were able to ensure that the pharmaceutical was not distribu [...]
In Amgen v. Sandoz, Fed. Cir., No. 15-1499 (July 21, 2015), a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its first decision interpreting the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), and did so in a manner that favors biosimilar applicants in one respect while favoring reference product sponsors (e.g., owners of original biologic products) in another. The result for Amgen and Sandoz is that Sandoz can start selling Zarxio™, its biosimilar version of Amgen’s Neupogen® (filgrastim) product, on September 2, 2015. The result for other biosimilar applicants is less clear, since the court’s decision leaves open more questions than it answers.