Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comment on the German Federal Supreme Court Decision “Raltegravir”

Patent Act, Secs. 24, 85(1)

  • Case Note
  • Germany
  • Published:
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. See Rinken and Kühnen, in: Schulte (ed.), Patentgesetz, 2014, § 24 N 5; Rogge and Kober-Dehn, in: Benkard (ed.), Patentgesetz, 2015, § 24 N 4.

  2. Federal Patent Court, decision of 7 June 1991, 4 Li 1/90 (EU) = BPatGE 32, 184.

  3. Federal Supreme Court, decision of 5 December 1995, X ZR 26/92 = GRUR 1996, 190, 192 – Polyferon.

  4. Federal Patent Court, decision of 31 August 2016, LiQ 1/16 (EP).

  5. German Federal Supreme Court, decision of 5 December 1995 – X ZR 26/92 = 1996 GRUR 190, 192 – Polyferon.

  6. Arnold J, [2016] EWHC 2989 (Pat), at 355.

  7. The Federal Patent Court in its decision has also discussed the differences and possible similarities between the FRAND licenses and the compulsory license according to Sec. 24 Patent Act. See Federal Patent Court, decision of 31 August 2016, LiQ 1/16 (EP) at 22 et seq.

  8. Hilty and Slowinski, “Standardessentielle Patente – Perspektiven außerhalb des Kartellrechts”, 2015 GRUR Int. 781.

  9. See Kumar, “Compulsory licenses: Is India protecting its own?”, Intellectual Property Magazine, available at: http://www.intellectualpropertymagazine.com/patent/compulsory-licences-is-india-protecting-its-own-94969.htm (accessed 24 October 2017).

  10. Lo, “Compulsory Licensing: Threats, Use and Recent Trends”, in: Mercurio and Kim (eds.), Contemporary Issues in Pharmaceutical Patent Law, 144 at 145, Routledge, Oxon, UK.

  11. See Kumar (supra note 9).

  12. See minutes of the oral proceedings in case T-1150/15 of 11 October 2017 available from the register of the EPO.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. J.S.M. (Stanford); Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Attorney-at-Law, Munich, Germany

    Peter R. Slowinski

Authors
  1. Peter R. Slowinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter R. Slowinski.

Additional information

For a translation of the German Federal Supreme Court decision “Raltegravir” into English, see this issue of IIC at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-017-0661-3.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Slowinski, P.R. Comment on the German Federal Supreme Court Decision “Raltegravir”. IIC 49, 125–130 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-017-0662-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-017-0662-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation