EN

Urgent Notice of the Federal Patent Court: Preliminary Injunction issued in a Compulsory License Proceedings concerning “Isentress” (raltegravir against AIDS)

This is in follow up to our IP newsletter of September 1, 2016. The German Federal Patent Court now issued an urgent notice with the following content:

  • In compulsory license proceedings, regarding the question whether the license seeker has made unsuccessful efforts to obtain authorization for use of the invention on reasonable commercial terms and conditions (Sec. 24 Para. 1 No. 1 Patents Act), the primary focus has to be put on the perspective of the license seeker. It is only required by him to make attempts to obtain a license on conditions that a reasonable, economically thinking third party would be willing to accept in this situation, allowing room for certain negotiations – under the reservation that such efforts are not feigned. Thereby, he could consider circumstances, which challenge the validity of the respective patent from his point of view.

  • The offer of the license seeker need not meet the requirements of a compulsory license under anti-trust laws or the anti-trust objection of compulsory license.

  • Next to the urgency in the meaning of Sec. 85 Para. 1 Patents Act, the procedural urgency (in the meaning of Secs. 935, 940 ZPO – German Code of Civil Procedure) is not an additional requirement for the grant of a preliminary injunction under Sec. 85 Para. 1 Patents Act.

The complete decision is already published in BeckRS 2016, 113453. An English translation will follow soon. Our Munich partner, Fritz Lahrtz who is one of the leaders of the litigation team representing the proprietor of the patent, would be happy to give you more detailed information about the decision.

Weitere Beiträge von Dr. Raphael Bösl

The “Druckexemplar” determines the extent of protection conferred by a European patent

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Restoration of the Right of Priority under the PCT – different “Criterion for Restoration” before the USPTO and the EPO

Dr. Raphael Bösl

License Fees for a Compulsory License – Isentress II – German Federal Patent Court

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Follow-up: Preliminary Injunction confirmed by the German Federal Supreme Court in a Compulsory License Proceedings concerning a Medicament against AIDS

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Preliminary Injunction confirmed by the German Federal Supreme Court in a Compulsory License Proceedings concerning a Medicament against AIDS

Dr. Raphael Bösl

EPO clarifies practice in the area of plant and animal patents

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Urgent Notice of the Federal Patent Court: Preliminary Injunction issued in a Compulsory License Proceedings concerning “Isentress” (raltegravir against AIDS)

Dr. Raphael Bösl

EPO stays all proceedings in which the invention is a plant or animal obtained by an essentially biological process

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Communication from the Chairmen of the UPC Preparatory Committee and the EPO Select Committee dealing with the Unitary Patent of July 1, 2016

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Functional Features – Essential Features: A New Perspective under Article 84 EPC

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Plant Patent Protection and Plant Variety Protection – Two Independent IP Rights?

Dr. Raphael Bösl

A pitfall to supplement information incorporated by reference under the EPC

Dr. Raphael Bösl

EPO: claims directed to the use of a product produced by a process

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO decided on Clarity – expected decision now issued (G 3/14)

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Deautomation is not per se Inventive – an Exemption from the Rule under the EPC

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Four Step Approach in Determining Sufficiency of Disclosure of a Parameter under the EPC

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Refocus on the Interpretation of “Undue Burden” for the Determination of the Scope of Protection under the EPC

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Functional Definition of Compounds in Use Claims – Different Decisions in Germany and “Europe”

Dr. Raphael Bösl