• 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

Aids medication: German Federal Court confirms compulsory license

4. August 2017

German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) concurs with the Federal Patent Court’s judgement of September 1st 2016 and therefore allows the continued distribution of the Aids medication “Isentress” meaning the preliminarily compulsory license for the HIV drug remains. The main lawsuit is still unsettled.

 

The German Federal Court of Justice (“Bundesgerichtshof”, BGH) has confirmed (main lawsuit is filed under 3 Li 1/16 (EP)) with its July 11th 2017 decision the Federal Patent Court’s judgement which has issued a preliminarily compulsory license for the first time in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning a patent property right. Thanks to this Merck (applicant) may continue distributing the Aids medicament “Isentress” containing the active drug “Raltegravir”. But: Settlement talks in the main proceedings concerning a specific license agreement and corresponding licensing fees for the patent right’s use were as of yet unsuccessful and have been postponed.

 

Money-spinner Raltegravir-patent – Shionogi calls upon Düsseldorf’s Regional Court

Isentress® Raltegravir Medikament Drug

For 15 years now the pharmaceutical companies Shionogi (Japan, applicant) and Merck (USA, doing business in Germany as MSD) are in dispute. At the time the Japanese filed a patent application incorporating the active drug Raltagravir in particular.

However Merck has kept busy as well and filed a patent application in 2007, incorporating the active drug Raltagravir, too. Shionogi sued Merck to cease and desist at Düsseldorf’s Regional Court claiming patent infringement. Meck fought back at and filed an application to grant a compulsory license with the Federal Patent Court.

The Japanese’s European Patent was upheld with restricted scope after objection proceedings. The final judgement on the objection by the European Patent Office’s Technical Board  of Appeal as part of the main lawsuit is still pending.

 

The public’s health care is paramount – compulsory license remains

In short: Federal Patent Court agrees with Merck’s arguments because the company complies with two mandatory conditions with Section 24 paragraph 1 of the German Patent Act:

On the one hand Merck offered Shionogi to pay a fee of ten million Dollar for a global license and on the other hand there was public interest because pregnant women, children and longtime HIV-infected benefit from the medicine. Tolerability wise including possible side effect Isentress is the recommended medicine of choice.

Thanks to the decision before, the BPatG allowed the distribution of “Isentress” even though the Japanese group had registered the patent for the active substance in Europe.

 

Compulsory license for a patent right: These lessons might be learned from the case

World_Aids_Day_Ribbon

The significance of the topic of “compulsory license for patent rights” has significantly risen, especially concerning the pharmaceutical market, although compulsory license in preliminary proceedings are still uncommon. Federal Patent Court’s decision or rather the German Federal Court of Justice’s decision to uphold this judgement sets a clear example: the public’s health care (“public interest”) has of large significance with the courts, especially concerning a disease – as with this case – that is hard to treat.

The public’s health care predominates the patent right protection and justifies patent use via compulsory license.

 

For patent proprietors finding themselves in a similar situation this case is of importance as well, because it shows that pharmaceutical companies especially have to expect that third parties will resume their business (distribution) even if infringing patent rights. Important: In the case of Merck vs. Shionogi there was despite Merck’s attempts no mutual consent was found. 10 million USD was not enough for the Japanese company.

 

This stubbornness in connection with the large significance of the “public’s health care” culminated towards Shionogi’s destiny. Nevertheless the case has not find its conclusion yet. Shionogi will still proceed in front of the Federal Patent Court in mid-June and Düsseldorf’s Regional Court as well because there is still a final decision for the main lawsuit pending.

 

Compulsory license – Does this concern you as well?!

Then we should talk to each other. Our lawyers advise you individually and together with you develop the right strategy to protect your patent rights.

Make a non-binding call back call today:


Sources:

Text: Press Release by the German Federal Court of Justice

Picture: MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconLicenses,  Patent Law Tag icon§ 24 PatG,  § 85 PatG,  1 422 218,  3 Li 1/16 (EP),  4b O 48/15,  5 207 392,  X ZB 2/17

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Licenses

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:

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

19. January 2022
Computer Data identification declared invalid

Computer Data identification declared invalid

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

© MD LEGAL Patentanwalt, European Patent Attorney 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.