When are IP holders liable for enforcing a later invalidated IP right?
On behalf of our entire IP team, we first and foremost would like to wish you the very best for the New Year, and invite you to our first IP Update of 2023.
At this IP Update, our IP specialists, Christophe Ronse and Kirian Claeyé, will discuss under what circumstances IP holders may be held liable for enforcing a later invalidated IP right.
As many of you will know, this is a ‘hot’ topic. In 2019, the CJEU delivered its judgment in Bayer v Gedeon Richter (C-688/17), which addressed this question regarding the loss suffered from a provisional injunction based on a subsequently invalidated patent. On 11 October 2022, the Brussels Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in Mylan v Novartis applying the CJEU’s principles to a case where the patentee had enforced a provisional injunction based on the Belgian tier of a subsequently invalidated European patent. The day before, on 10 October 2022, the Finnish Markinnaoikeus had referred another question for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU relating to a subsequently invalidated SPC (C-473/22).
Christophe and Kirian will focus on these two judgments and the pending referral in the broader context of earlier case law and explain what their outcomes could mean for your business. They will answer questions that include:
- Is an IP holder automatically liable for enforcing a provisional injunction based on a later invalidated IP right?
- Is the answer different if it concerns a first instance provisional injunction that is later overturned on appeal?
- Under what circumstances would an IP holder be considered to have ‘abused’ its right to enforce the later invalidated right?
This webinar will be in English and has been accredited with 1 point by the IBJ/IJE.
We look forward to virtually meeting you soon!
Your hosts
Recommended articles
The new Belgian government’s public health policy: 10 key take-aways for pharma policy
The new Belgian federal government has outlined its vision for public health in a policy paper under the slogan “More money for health, more health for our money”. Public health is a high-priority sector with a significant budget, and the policy paper introduces several key measures that will shape the pharmaceutical industry in the coming years. For pharma companies operating in Belgium, these developments bring both new regulatory challenges and strategic opportunities. Here is a focused analysis of ten key changes and their potential impact on the pharma industry.
Read on
CJEU’s DocMorris Ruling: where is the line for pharmaceutical advertising?
The intersection of pharmaceutical advertising, consumer protection, and internal market freedoms remains a complex legal battleground within the EU. In Apothekerkammer Nordrhein v. DocMorris NV (C-517/23), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) revisited the meaning of ‘advertising of medicinal products’, clarifying how far national restrictions on pharmaceutical advertisements can go under EU pharmaceutical law and internal market principles.
Read on
New year, new policy: CPVO updates its public access to documents policy
The Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) recently revised its public access to documents policy to align with the European Union (EU)’s evolving transparency standards. Effective since 15 January 2025, the new policy seeks to ensure broad access to all documents that the CPVO holds, while protecting private parties’ commercial interests. In particular, a system of prior confidentiality requests has been put in place for applicants of Community plant variety rights (CPVR).
Read on