Greece: PI awarded despite negative validity judgment from EPO

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: 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to market a generic copy of said rivastigmine patch, in its defence argued that the patent was invalid and that it had been revoked by the EPO and could therefore not provide protection.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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Nick Groombridge shares how an accidental turn into patent law informed his approach to building a practice based on flexibility and balancing client and practitioner needs
Clarivate’s Ed White discusses the joy of measuring innovation and why patent attorneys are a special breed
National groups for the UK and the Netherlands have flagged concerns with the choice of venue, following a formal complaint from Australia’s national group
Rasenberger is the CEO at the Authors Guild in the US
Vold-Burgess is the client director at Acapo Onsagers and the former CEO at Acapo in Norway
Williams is the CEO of the UKIPO in the UK
Orliuk is director of the Ukrainian IP office
Julie is chief IP counsel at Teva in the US
Ludlam is chief IP and litigation officer at Lenovo, while Maharaj is chief licensing officer for Ericsson in the US
Campinos is the president of the EPO in Munich
Gift this article