Greece: PI awarded despite negative validity judgment from EPO
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Greece: PI awarded despite negative validity judgment from EPO

The Athens Single Member Court of First Instance recently granted a preliminary injunction based on a patent despite the fact that the Opposition Division of the EPO, a few days before the preliminary injunction hearing, had revoked the same patent.

The case concerned a preliminary injunction filed on behalf of an originator pharmaceutical company based on a patent covering a novel dosage regimen of a transdermal patch containing rivastigmine used in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. The defendant, a company seeking to market a generic copy of said rivastigmine patch, in its defence argued that the patent was invalid and that it had been revoked by the EPO and could therefore not provide protection. Furthermore, the defendant argued that the patent's claim was not to a dosage regimen of a transdermal patch but rather to the transdermal patch per se and that the generic product had different structural features and hence was not infringing. Furthermore, the generic company argued there was no urgency and that it was in the health funds' interest that a generic product be allowed to be launched in the market.

The Court, after assessing the nullity grounds raised by the defendant, was not convinced. Furthermore, the fact that the EPO Opposition Division had recently revoked the patent did not stop the judge from granting the PI requested, as the patentee had filed an appeal, which under Article 106(1) EPC has a suspensive effect. The judge found that the patent was directed to a dosage regimen and the structural differences of the two patches were not relevant on infringement, given that the generic patch fell under the protected dosage regimen. Furthermore the judge acknowledged that the patentee had spent considerable time and resources in R&D to arrive to the protected invention and that it would suffer significant financial damage if the generic product was allowed to be launched in the market.

This decision is an important one since it is not often that a Greek court will decide to accept the prima facie validity of a European patent despite the fact that the EPO Opposition Division has revoked said patent and proceed to apply a balance of the parties' interests, deciding in favour of the patentee.

kilimiris.jpg

Constantinos Kilimiris


Patrinos & Kilimiris7, Hatziyianni Mexi Str.GR-11528 AthensGreeceTel: +30210 7222906, 7222050Fax: +30210 7222889info@patrinoskilimiris.comwww.patrinoskilimiris.com

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

High-earning businesses place most value on the depth of the external legal teams advising them, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
Kilpatrick Townsend was recognised as Americas firm of the year, while patent powerhouse James Haley won a lifetime achievement award
Partners at Foley Hoag and Kilburn & Strode explore how US and UK courts have addressed questions of AI and inventorship
In-house lawyers have considerable influence over law firms’ actions, so they must use that power to push their external advisers to adopt sustainable practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Gift this article