Greece: Court rules combination product is inventive

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Greece: Court rules combination product is inventive

A defendant in preliminary injunction proceedings heard before a Greek court, relating to the infringement of a pharmaceutical patent, may raise an objection to the patent's validity. This option is not free from difficulties as the Greek court, which has jurisdiction to grant an injunction, is not a specialised IP court which has jurisdiction to try the same case in ordinary proceedings, but a court having general jurisdiction on civil and commercial matters.

In the specific case, the patent in suit was one containing an independent claim that covers a new and inventive active ingredient (active ingredient A), which was not challenged by the defendant. The same patent also contained a dependent claim, which covered a combination of the active ingredient A along with another off-patent active ingredient (active ingredient B). The defendant's objection on inventive step was only directed against the above-mentioned combination.

The Greek court dismissed the objection as a matter of law, holding that it cannot in any way be inferred, as per the defendant's allegation, that the combination of the two active ingredients, does not meet the condition of inventive step, given that active ingredient A was not known before the grant of the patent in suit, since it was first discovered with the invention protected by the patent, and, therefore any combination of a previously unknown substance, such as active ingredient A, with a known substance, such as active ingredient B, was not obvious or evident.

This is in line with EPO case law, according to which, in cases where an independent claim is acknowledged as new and inventive, it follows that the claims dependent thereon are also new and inventive (see EPO Guidelines, G VIII -13), as argued by the claimant.

Good guidance helps, especially in IP cases where fast and effective protection is a stepping stone for IP owners.

metaxakis.jpg

Manolis Metaxakis

Patrinos & Kilimiris

7, Hatziyianni Mexi Str.

GR-11528 Athens

Greece

Tel: +30210 7222906, 7222050

Fax: +30210 7222889

info@patrinoskilimiris.com

www.patrinoskilimiris.com


more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The initial contempt of court claim targeted Stobbs and the firm’s client for allegedly interfering with the administration of justice
Acquisition of platform developed by Boehmert & Boehmert lawyer set to create a combined platform for patent drafting and prosecution in Europe
Partner Rob Jacob unveils plans to offer a beginning-to-end trademark service, how to make prosecution profitable, and why IP ‘buy-in’ from the CEO stands the firm in good stead
Sponsored by CAS
CAS provides practical pointers on how intellectual property and R&D teams can work in tandem to unlock tangible benefits and avoid wasted spend
Sponsored by CAS
CAS explores how AI is transforming intellectual property, from inventorship and copyright disputes to new demands on patent attorneys
Sponsored by That.Legal
Gillian Tan of That.Legal discusses a recent decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and what it reveals about the evidential burden in bad-faith trademark claims
Attorneys at Di Blasi, Parente & Associados share how the protection of trade secrets strengthens innovation by bringing together legal practice, regulatory developments, and established international references
Jin Ooi, who joins as a partner today, said he is excited to offer a ‘rounded’ IP service as the firm deepens its litigation expertise in the UK and Europe
As generics celebrate, practitioners believe innovator companies should brace for an ‘uphill battle’ when trying to prove induced infringement
A team from Cooley shares how they overturned a massive damages award by emphasising that the opposing company’s trade secrets claims were time-barred
Gift this article