Advertisement

“Finasteride”

Decision of the Supreme Court (Cour de cassation), Commercial Division 6 December 2017 – Case No. ECLI:FR:CCASS:2017:CO01514
  • Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Teva Santé v. Merck & Co. Inc. (now Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.) Intellectual Property Code, Arts. L. 613-27, L. 614-12; Munich Convention on the Grant of European Patents (EPC), Arts. 53(c), 54, 56, 138; Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 55
Decision • Patent Law France
  • 31 Downloads
  1. 1.

    A decision cancelling a patent does not have absolute effect within the meaning of Art. L. 613-27 of the Intellectual Property Code until it has acquired the force of res judicata.

     
  2. 2.

    Where a claim concerns a subsequent therapeutic application of a substance or a composition, obtaining this therapeutic effect is a functional technical characteristic of the claim, such that, although the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure does not require this therapeutic effect to be shown clinically, the patent claim must in any event directly and without ambiguity reflect the therapeutic application claimed, so that the person skilled in the art understands, on the basis of generally accepted models, that the results reflect this therapeutic application.

     

Keywords

Cancellation of claims Lack of novelty Insufficiency of description Lack of inventive step Pharmaceuticals Clinical proof of a therapeutic effect 

Copyright information

© Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Teva Santé v. Merck & Co. Inc. (now Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.) Intellectual Property Code, Arts. L. 613-27, L. 614-12; Munich Convention on the Grant of European Patents (EPC), Arts. 53(c), 54, 56, 138; Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 55

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations