• 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

Royalty rate for ‘extended use’ product in Germany

3. February 2020

In the case of a dispute about an employee‘s invention in the pharmaceutical sector, the development of an ‘extended use’ product was in focus. The German Arbitration Board stated royalty rates for pharmaceutical products with or with expired active ingredient patents. This is because the active ingredient patent determines the market exclusivity.

extended-use productUsually the royalty rate for a complex product can reach the level of the maximum royalty rate possible for this product market. A single license rate, on the other hand, is often in the range of half the maximum license rate and even lower.

In the pharmaceutical sector, however, there are other aspects to consider. This is because, in the opinion of the Arbitration Board, the active substance is the founding element of a drug’s market exclusivity.

However, if this active ingredient patent has already expired, the complex license rate for a drug complex cannot be in the range of the maximum license rate. This was formulated by the German Arbitration Board of the DPMA as a non-official guiding decision.

Background of this decision

Among other things, the royalty rate on which the employer had based the remuneration for the employee‘s invention within the scope of the value of the invention was disputed in this case. The  inventor has a doctorate in pharmacy and was to evaluate the development of an ‘extended use’ product based on the standard combined preparations already available in the company.

The resulting invention was granted a European patent. Moreover, the employer uses the invention in an extended use product, which is also protected by intellectual property rights relating to the formulation, the manufacturing process for the active ingredient, the composition and, depending on the country, the cartridge. In contrast, the originally underlying active ingredient patents had already expired before the market launch of the extended use product. This product was therefore characterized from the outset by a complex of inventions without active ingredient patents. The Arbitration Board clarified that in such a case no reference can be made to the usual license rates in the pharmaceutical sector for drugs with active ingredient patents.

Excursus: German License Rates for Pharmaceuticals with Active Ingredient Patents

The Arbitration Board has previously decided that within license fees, active ingredient patents are entitled to 50 % – 70 % of the total license fee. This is also based on older estimates from the relevant legal literature. In Reimer/Schade/Schippel, for example, with reference to an agreement proposal from 1995, a licence rate for a finished medicinal product of 4 % is regarded as the upper limit. According to Trimborn, on the other hand, the royalty rates for finished drugs are usually 1 – 5 % and 0.5 – 2.5 % for pure substance inventions.

And according to Bartenbach/Volz, royalty rates of 0.5 to 2.5 % are usually paid for pure substance inventions; royalty rates of up to 10 % are therefore only paid in absolutely exceptional cases and only for the entire finished product with outstanding properties. Moreover, in practice, 60 – 80 % of such a royalty rate would be attributed to the official approval and not to the exclusion value with regard to technical teaching.

No market exclusivity through the ‘extended use’ product without active ingredient patent

Since the ‘extended use’ product in the present case was based on active substances which had already expired before the market launch, the market was only enriched by the development of a further product, but not exclusively siphoned off, the arbitration board ruled. The extended regime for this product did not create market exclusivity, was added. If the aim of the development of the product is to enter the market for ‘extended use’, which was already occupied by a competing product, then there is no market exclusivity.

Moreover, the Arbitration Board added that if the active ingredient patents of a drug have already expired before the product is launched on the market, then the product is from the outset characterised by a complex of inventions without active ingredient patents.

Therefore, the Arbitration Board was of the opinion that the complex license rate in this case could be set at a maximum of 2.5%.

Do you also need support in the field of German patent law or a licensing agreement?

Our lawyers will be pleased to advise you. Please contact us if you are interested – we look forward to your call!

 

Sources: 

Decision Arb.Erf. 16/17 (in German)

Image:

Garak01 ~ pixabay ~ CCO License

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconHealthcare & Lifesciences,  Licenses,  Patent Law Tag iconArbitration Board,  employee's invention,  extended use,  German patent law,  license,  license rate,  market exclusivity,  Pharma,  pharmaceutical,  royalties,  royalty,  royalty rate

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:

7. March 2022
BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt

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

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

22. February 2022
PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

8. February 2022
Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

3. February 2022
PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

1. February 2022
Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

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.