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.
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!
Hemp seeds have been eaten in the EU for a long time. The seeds may contain trace amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) because this cannabinoid is a natural constituent of the cannabis plant from which the seeds originate. The EU regulator has decided to harmonize the maximum levels for THC in hemp seeds throughout the Union within the food contaminants framework.Read on
At this additional Christmas edition, the IP specialists in our Life Sciences team discuss the CJEU’s latest decisions on the parallel trade of medicines, and what these decisions mean in practice for your company. On 17 November 2022, the CJEU delivered essentially two decisions on the parallel trade of medicines. The first concerned the rebranding […]Read on
Are parallel importers necessarily allowed to rebox medicines in case of visible traces from ATDs? The CJEU says NO
Pharmaceutical companies are obliged to affix an anti-tampering device (‘ATD’) on prescription-only medicines to enable verification of whether a medicine’s packaging has been tampered with. Parallel importers argue that this results in an overarching objective necessity to ‘rebox’ such medicines.Read on