The Federal Patent Court sees claims for use only in narrow interpretation as procedural claims in utility model protection. The Federal Patent Court ruled in accordance with the Federal Supreme Court that in particular protection claims relating to the use of known substances in the context of a medical indication are
An SPC cannot be granted for a medicinal product which is protected in the basic patent and already on the market - even if a new formulation of an "old" active substance of this medicinal product represents and the effect is thus improved, the ECJ ruled in the case Abraxis.
In the Debrisoft II case, the Federal Supreme Court ruled as a guiding principle whether and to what extent the principles of exhaustion of trademark rights in parallel imports of medicinal products also apply to medical devices would only be relevant in the case of repackaging or re-labelling.
The German OLG Düsseldorf rejected the application for a preliminary injunction against a competitor of the drug against breast cancer. The focus is on the possible patent infringement of a use patent with the active ingredient fulvestrant.
U.S. company Amgen has successfully defended two patents related to its cholesterol drug Repatha. The U.S. court in Delaware yesterday confirmed the validity of the patents at the center of the patent dispute with Sanofi and Regeneron.
Protection by a supplementary protection certificate for the new formulation of an active substance is important for the development of new drugs. The granting of several SPCs on the basis of the same patent has been judged in the case law of recent years.
Is the marketing of a generic medicinal product restricted requested if the generic medicinal product manufacturer does not indicate in the summary of product characteristics and the package leaflet of the medicinal product those indications or dosages of the reference medicinal product which are patent protected at
The decentralised authorisation procedure for the placing on the market of a medicinal product forms part of the EU Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Current case law defines the powers of the courts of the EU Member States concerned in which the application for marketing authorisation was
The Federal Patent Court has issued a decision on the reimbursement of costs for experimental private expert opinions. Only in exceptional cases are expert opinions or counter-assessments necessary. The decision is a partial success for a subsidiary of 3M - after the declaration of nullity for the German part of it's
On Tuesday, the Indian Supreme Court restored Bayer AG's Monsanto patent claim on genetically modified Bt cotton for the time being, thereby overturning a judgment to the contrary in April 2018. Until the Delhi Supreme Court decides on the validity of the patent, Monsanto may charge royalties on Bt cotton in India.
The German part of a European patent on PCT diagnostic for sepsis of the Hennigsdorf-based medical device manufacturer B-R-A-H-M-S GmbH was partially invalidated by the BPatG.
A supplementary protection certificate cannot be granted for a medicinal product which is protected by the basic patent and placed on the market - even if the product is a new formulation of an "old" active substance. The Advocate General recommends it today in an important SPC preliminary ruling in the Abraxis and
Patents on plants and animals from conventional breeding have become more likely since this week. In a hearing before the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office on the Syngenta patent on wild pepper, a far-reaching decision war announced.
Pharmaceutical company Roche Italia is allowed to market off-label drugs without a marketing authorisation, the ECJ ruled today. The focus is on the drug Avastin, which is used not only for its approved indication for tumour diseases, but also as an off-label treatment for eye diseases.
The European Patent Office (EPO) has revoked Bayer AG's controversial Monsanto biopatent, which was intended to protect the breeding of broccoli to facilitate harvesting. It is the first revocation of a biopatent since the introduction of the newly revised EU regulation for biopatents in 2017.