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

A lack of comfort among some salaried partners shows why law firms must actively foster inclusion, not merely focus on diversity mandates
Arrival of Laura Alonso, alongside a team of 11, will bring ‘significant value’ to ECIJA clients, says CEO
In the first of a two-part article, lawyers at Spruson & Ferguson and Marshall Gerstein provide an overview of China’s system for appealing against patent invalidation decisions
Lawyers and corporate leaders at INTA’s Business of M&A conference in New York discussed how cross-practice collaboration and early in-house involvement can help deals
Lily Li, partner at Morrison Foerster, shares how her litigation team helped secure victory at the ITC in a patent infringement case
Top talking points also included news of an appellate ruling concerning ‘Pisco’ and Indian drugmakers gearing up to launch generic versions of Ozempic as Novo Nordisk’s patent expires
The government’s keenly awaited view on AI and copyright has positive themes but leaves rights owners wanting, says Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard
While IP Australia’s updated manual could be favourable to computer-implemented inventions, stakeholders would like to see whether a consistent and reliable standard is followed during actual examination
UKIPO will remain a competitive option as long as efficient service continues
A future opt-out has not been ruled out, but practitioners warn that the UK could fall behind in the AI race
Gift this article