• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt

7. March 2022

European patent 2 305 255 was provisionally declared invalid to the extent of patent claim 12 with effect for Germany. It concerns a cancer drug with a patent claim to the active substance sorafenib tosylate, i.e. to the salt of the active substance sorfenib for oral administration.

Medikament orale VerabreichungThe cancer drug whose patent was challenged before the Federal Patent Court (BPatG) is marketed under the name Nexavar®. It is approved for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma. This medicament is protected by European patent 2 305 255, on the one hand by use claim 1, to which patent claims 2 to 11 are directly or indirectly related, and on the other hand by substance claim 12, which contains a patent claim to the active substance sorafenib tosylate (as a single agent).

Invalidity action against substance claim

The invalidity action was directed against this substance claim 12 and was decided by the BPatG in September 2021 (3 Ni 12/20 (EP) plus 3 Ni 13/21 (EP)). The applicant claimed that the provision of the tosylate salt of the active substance sorafenib could not be regarded as an independent invention. The solubility of the active substance or its salt was not addressed and, moreover, the bioavailability of the active substance sorafenib could not be considered problematic.

As a counter-argument, the plaintiff mainly referred to NiK2 (J.F. LYONS et al., Endocrine-Related Cancer 2001, 8, 219-225). This was because it had already been established that sorafenib free base as such was an orally available effective Raf kinase inhibitor with significant activity against various human tumour types.

Central to the present case was therefore the BPatG’s assessment of whether the provision of the active substance as the salt sorafenib tosylate was an “inventive step”.

Salt Sorafenib tosylate = “inventive step”?

To give the answer first: the answer is “no”, the BPatG did not see any inventive step in the provision of the active substance as a salt in the present case. However, the court’s comments are interesting with regard to the patentability of pharmacological salts.

The Federal Patent Court explained that sorafenib showed poor solubility according to counterpart NiK2. And in principle, the search for an improved therapy and also for an improved oral form of a medicine can justify a patent claim. But NiK2 also proves a good gastrointestinal permeability of the active substance sorafenib, so that a good efficacy is given with oral administration of the active substance despite poor solubility.

But even if the active ingredient did not have good efficacy, salt formation would have been a common and, according to NiK11 (R. J. Bastin, Organic Process Research & Development 2000, 4, 427-435), even the preferred way to improve the solubility of a poorly soluble active ingredient, the German Federal patent court explained. The skilled person would also not disregard the tosylate salt because no active ingredient formulated as a tosylate salt and to be administered orally had been approved up to the priority date.

The physico-chemical analysis of an active substance was part of the pharmacologist’s daily routine in the preformulation phase. And there was no prejudice or reservation against the use of tosylate salts in professional circles, the court added.

Evidence signs: Effort of Salt Screening

The BPatG also commented on the costs of salt screening. According to the BPatG, the time and financial effort of a salt screening played a subordinate role in the assessment of inventive step. In this context, the court also referred to the BGH decision Dreinahtschlauchfolienbeutel (BGH GRUR 2010), according to which evidence such as the time and financial expenditure in an individual case can at most give rise to an examination as to whether they provide sufficient indications (against the background of general technical knowledge) that the subject-matter of the dispute is obvious and do not only contain a suggestion leading to the invention from an ex-post point of view.

BPatG: No inventive step – appeal possible

In view of the foregoing, the court held that the person skilled in the art arrived at sorafenib tosylate as a suitable oral form of administration of the active ingredient sorafenib in an obvious manner based on NiK2 and in combination with his expertise (documented, inter alia, by NiK5 or NIB5, NiK11 and NIB15).

Therefore, the provision of the active ingredient as a salt and thus patent claim 12 from the present case is not to be regarded as an inventive step. European patent 2 305 255 was therefore declared invalid for the time being to the extent of patent claim 12 with effect for Germany.

Anyway, the judgement is not yet final, as the parties to the appeal proceedings have the right to appeal against this decision.

Do you also want to protect or defend a product?


Sources: 

BPatG: 3 Ni 12/20 (EP) hinzuverbunden 3 Ni 13/21 (EP)

Image:

stevepb | pixabay | CCO License

 

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconHealthcare & Lifesciences Tag iconactive ingredient,  BPatG,  cancer drug,  Nexavar®,  Sorafenib,  sorafenib tosylate

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Healthcare & Lifesciences

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

6. December 2021
Bioabsorbable medical devices: Advertising permitted

Bioabsorbable medical devices: Advertising permitted

26. November 2021
ECJ: Marketing authorisation of medicinal products according to national rules

ECJ: Marketing authorisation of medicinal products according to national rules

15. October 2021
Amendments in patent act China relating Pharmacy

Amendments in patent act China relating Pharmacy

5. October 2021
Merck and Merck & Co: dispute over digital global perception

Merck and Merck & Co: dispute over digital global perception

6. July 2021
Digitalisation in medical technology: medical purpose?

Digitalisation in medical technology: medical purpose?

14. June 2021
Intervention of a third party and injunction: BGH decision Pemetrexed II

Intervention of a third party and injunction: BGH decision Pemetrexed II

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.