Skip to main content


Decision of the Constitutional Court 24 May 2017 – Case No. 251/2017

  1. 1.

    The interpretatively extractable rule of Art. 2 of Law No. 62/2011, dated 12 December, and Arts. 35(1) and 101(2) of the Industrial Property Code, which establishes that, in the case of a mandatory arbitration established under Law No. 62/2011, dated 12 December, a party cannot be defended by exception by invoking the invalidity of a patent with inter partes effects, is unconstitutional because it disproportionately affects the right to judicial defense.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Author information


Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Translated by Nuno Sousa e Silva.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

A. & CO.KG and B., Lda. v. C. K.S and D. B.V Law No. 62/2011 of December 12, Art. 2; Industrial Property Code, Arts. 35(1), 101(2); Constitution, Arts. 18(2), 20. “Telmisartan”. IIC 50, 376–388 (2019).

Download citation


  • Mandatory arbitration
  • Patent invalidity
  • Effect inter partes
  • Right to defense
  • Proportionality
  • Constitutionality