Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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.


Manolis Metaxakis

Patrinos & Kilimiris

7, Hatziyianni Mexi Str.

GR-11528 Athens


Tel: +30210 7222906, 7222050

Fax: +30210 7222889

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A Court of Appeal judge demanded respect for solicitor-judges after reprimanding a barrister for his 'unwise' words
Speeches at the UPC inauguration highlighted the gap between the unitary patent dream and the reality today
Sources with experience on both sides of the Atlantic believe hugely profitable US law firms may still take some convincing before agreeing to partner with a UK outfit
IP counsel urge the government to restrict safe harbour exceptions available to intermediaries and clear up doubts with the existing law
A New York lawyer could face sanctions after citing fake judgments generated by ChatGPT, but that doesn’t mean practitioners should shy away from AI
Klaus Grabinski told delegates at a UPC inauguration event that the proposed SEP regulation would limit access to justice
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Sukanya Sarkar shares her thoughts on this year’s annual meeting in Singapore, where debates ranged from AI opportunities to improving law firm culture
The court’s ruling is a good reminder that US parties aren’t guaranteed attorney fees just because they win, say sources
With business confidence in a shaky state, Rachel Tan and Lisa Yong of Rouse discuss how in-house IP teams can manage their trademark portfolios through uncertain times