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 2025

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

IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
News of a new addition to Via LA’s Qi wireless charging patent pool, and potential fee increases at the UKIPO were also among the top talking points
Gift this article