Second medical use or indication claims. Winnie Tham, Edmund Kok, Nicholas Ong
|
|
- Jeffrey West
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Question Q238 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: AIPPI SINGAPORE Second medical use or indication claims Winnie Tham, Edmund Kok, Nicholas Ong THAM, Winnie Date: 17 May 2014 Questions I. Current law and practice Groups are invited to answer the following questions under their national laws. If those national and regional laws apply to a set of questions, please answer the questions separately for each set of laws. Please number your answers with the same numbers used for the corresponding questions. 1) Does your country permit patents covering any aspect of new uses of known pharmaceutical compounds (hereafter referred to as second medical use claims)? Yes. If yes, please answer Questions 2) to 7) inclusive before proceeding to the questions in Parts I and II. If no, please proceed directly to the questions in Parts II and III. 2) If the answer to Question 1) is yes, please answer the following sub questions. a) What is the basis for patent protection? Patent protection for second medical use can be found in the legislation. Section 14(7) of the Singapore Patents Act states that [in] the case of an invention consisting of a substance or composition for use in a method of treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy or of diagnosis practised on the human or animal body, the fact that the substance or composition forms part of the state of the art shall not prevent the invention from being taken to be new if the use of the substance or composition in any such method does not form part of the state of the art. b) What types of second medical use are patentable? See, for example, paragraphs 14) - 17) above/wgls. First medical uses of a known compound or substance are patentable pursuant to Section 14(7) of the Singapore Patents Act. 1
2 Second, or subsequent, medical uses are also patentable. This would include drugs initially developed for a particular therapeutic purpose that are found to also be useful for another therapeutic area. Similarly, drugs for which the first known use of the compound did not succeed but are discovered to be useful for another therapeutic area are also patentable. c) Are any types of second medical use impermissible subject matter? See, for example, paragraphs 14) - 17) above/wgls. Apart from the general prohibition against patents which encourage offensive, immoral or anti-social behavior, there are no types of second medical use which are impermissible subject matter. d) What forms of second medical use claims are permissible? See, for example, paragraphs 26) - 33) above/wgls. Two types of medical use claims are permissible. Firstly, purpose-limited product claims for the first medical use of a known compound or substance are acceptable. Secondly, second or subsequent medical use claims in the Swiss type format of the use of substance X for the manufacture of a medicament to treat disease Y are also acceptable. e) What forms of second medical use claims are not permissible? See, for example, paragraphs 26) - 33) above/wgls. Pursuant to Section 16(2) of the Singapore Patents Act, claims for methods of treatment are not patentable due to a lack of industrial application. Further, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore ( IPOS ) clarified in 2010 that claims for the second medical use of a substance or compound by using a purpose-limited product claim e.g. Compound X for use in the treatment of disease Y are not acceptable. This form is a result of EPC2000 and Section 4A(4) of the UK Patents Act, which Singapore does not have an equivalent. Claims drafted in this format would not be novel if the compound or substance had been used in any medical method in the prior art. f) Has any guidance been provided by courts or the national patent office in relation to the meaning, scope and/or effect of 'treatment', 'treating' or 'use to treat' integers in second medical use claims? See, for example, paragraphs 34) - 39) above WGLs. IPOS has clarified that the methods of treatment and diagnosis exception to patentability should be read narrowly. Section 16(2) of the Singapore Patents Act is primarily intended to ensure that medical or veterinary practitioners are not hindered by patent rights from properly exercising their professional skills. As such, it follows that IPOS has also adopted Jacob J s reasoning in Bristol- Myers Squibb v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals Inc, explaining that the purpose of the exception is merely to keep patent law from interfering directly with what the doctor actually does to the patient. 3) If your country permits second medical use claims: a) Who may be liable for infringement of such claims? For example: i) the party marketing the drug with label instructions which describe the 2
3 ii) iii) iv) patented use; the physician prescribing the drug for such use; the pharmacist dispensing a drug for such purpose; the patient using the drug for such purpose? There are currently no cases on the infringement of second medical use patents. Also, Singapore allows second medical use claims in Swiss-style format. Swiss-type claims are considered to be unclear because, although they define a method of manufacturing a medicament, the invention does not in fact relate to the method of production but instead relates to the intended use of the medicament. Prima facie, any party who does an infringing act would be liable unless their act falls under one of the exceptions (see 3b) below). Also, the Patents Act specifies that there may be an infringement where the invention is a process, where one disposes of, offers to dispose of, uses or imports any product obtained directly by means of that process or keeps any such product whether for disposal or otherwise. On these grounds, the parties who could potentially be liable would include: i) the party marketing the drug with label instructions which describe the patented use; ii) the physician prescribing the drug for such use; iii) the pharmacist dispensing a drug for such purpose; iv) the manufacturer b) Are any parties exempt from infringement or liability for infringement of such claims. If so, what classes of party? The legislation does not exempt any class per se. However, there are various exceptions to infringement. The pharmacist dispensing a drug for such purpose will not be liable provided his act, pursuant to Section 66(2)(c) of the Singapore Patents Act, consists of the extemporaneous preparation of a medicine for an individual in accordance with a prescription given by a registered medical or dental practitioner. The patient will not be liable because of the statutory exemption for private, non-commercial use. c) Are such claims enforceable on the basis of direct or indirect infringement? Please provide details. These claims will usually be enforceable on the basis of direct infringement, though Section 66(1) of the Singapore Patents Act states that it is also an infringement to dispose, offer to dispose or import infringing goods. Additionally, a party might be guilty of indirect infringement under the common law tort of procuring an infringement. It should be noted that the tort does not cover the sale of a non-patented article to a person who, to the vendor s knowledge, intended to use it in a patented process. 4) If a drug is approved for more than one indication, one or more of which (but not all) falls within the claims of a patent, is it an infringement if a party makes, supplies or uses a generic version of the drug for any use? 3
4 To date, there are no Singapore cases or legislation on point. In essence, one would have to look at the indications on the packaging for the drug in question when determining whether the manufacture or sale of the drug would infringe on the second medical use claim. There is infringement if the packaging includes an indication that is claimed in the second medical use claim. If the patented indication is not present in the packaging, then there could be arguments that there may not be an infringement. In the UK case of Actavis v Merck, Jacob LJ expressed obiter support for the view that a skinny labelled drug is not being sold for the patented use and as such does not infringe the patent. This has not been tested in the Singapore courts but is likely to have some persuasive value. 5) If the answer to Question 4) is yes, please answer the following sub questions in that context. a) Is each of the acts of making, supplying and using a form of infringement? If not, please specify which (or any other) acts which constitute infringement. b) Is it necessary for a finding of infringement that the party making, supplying or using the generic version of the drug does so in connection with the infringing use? c) If yes to b), is it necessary that the party knows that their actions are in connection with the infringing use? d) If yes to c), what standard of knowledge is required? See, for example, paragraphs 38) and 47) above. 6) How do the courts determine infringement of a second medical use claim? What are the legal tests and evidentiary requirements? To date, there is no Singapore case that deals with the infringement of a second medical use claim. As such, it is uncertain whether the usual rules on patent infringement apply. To determine whether there has been an infringement generally, the courts first assess the scope of the monopoly claimed in the patent. Subsequently, the courts determine whether the alleged infringement falls within the words of one of the claims. If it does, the patent has been infringed. As patent infringement is a statutory tort, the civil standard of proof would apply the claimant would have to show, on balance of probabilities, that the defendant infringed his patent. Where appropriate, the claimant would also have to establish the validity of the patent. 7) What relief is available for infringement of a second medical use claim: a) at a preliminary / interim / interlocutory level? The claimant may restrain the defendant by interlocutory injunction if the claimant can establish that he has an arguable case on the facts and that if the injunction is refused, he will not be adequately compensated by an award of damages at the full trial. The court will then determine, on the balance of convenience, whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted. 4
5 b) by way of final relief? The following remedies are available for patent infringement: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Account of profits; Damages; Permanent injunction; and Order for delivery. 8) In respect of Question 7)a), can a preliminary / interim / interlocutory injunction be granted solely upon the statements provided in the product packaging or based on the writing of a prescription? If not, what is the basis for relief? It appears likely for a Singapore court to grant an interlocutory injunction solely upon the statements provided in the product packaging since there is likely to be an infringement if the packaging includes an indication that is claimed in the second medical use claim. However, one would probably need further evidence and facts (e.g. what transpired and led to the writing of the prescription) for obtaining an interlocutory injunction based on the writing of a prescription. In any event, it should be highlighted that, because an interlocutory injunction is an equitable relief, a Singapore court will also take into consideration a whole range of other factors in granting the injunction including whether there is an arguable case on the facts adequate compensation by an award of damages. 9) In respect of Question 7)b), what level of proof is required to obtain a final injunction? Likewise, a final injunction is an equitable relief and a Singapore court will take into consideration a whole range of other factors in granting the injunction.the court will usually grant a final injunction unless the circumstances negative the probability of infringement in the future. 5
6 II. Policy considerations and proposals for improvements to your current law 10) If your country permits second medical use claims, please answer the following sub questions. a) What are the policy reasons behind permitting such claims? The Singapore Patents Act provisions on second medical use claims are largely based on those of the United Kingdom Patents Act However, Singapore has not adopted Section 4A(4) of the United Kingdom Patents Act 1977, which concerns purpose-limited product claims. There are various policy reasons why Singapore might allow second medical uses to be patented. One reason might be to incentivize research into better treatments for various diseases. For instance, a drug that does not succeed in respect of its first known use might turn out to be very effective at treating another disease. Similarly, substances originally not known to have therapeutic effects might turn out to have the same. Without the protection of the patent system, there is little incentive for pharmaceutical companies to conduct such research. Another reason might be to achieve a level of consistency with the international community. Many of the developed countries, such as the UK, US and Australia, provide patent protection in one form or another for second medical uses. Given that a substantial portion of Singapore s patent laws are derived from the United Kingdom Patents Act, it is not surprising that Singapore has permitted claims for second medical uses. b) Are such claims as are currently permissible in your country considered to strike the right balance between the interests of relevant stakeholders? Whether patents for second medical uses strike an appropriate balance between the relevant stakeholders depends on the scope of the monopoly afforded to the proprietors. It could be possible that a Singapore court may take the position that skinny labelling is not a defence to a claim for indirect infringement. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of Singapore case law on how second medical use claims are to be constructed. Singapore permits the patenting of Swiss-type claims and first time medical uses of known substances. Prima facie, this approach strikes a desirable balance as it is important to incentivize further research into pre-existing drugs and/or substances. c) Is it considered that such claims better serve the interests of some stakeholders and/or are detrimental to other stakeholders? Currently, the law has been interpreted in a manner that is favourable to patentees. It remains to be seen whether such an approach would have a corresponding detrimental effect on other stakeholders, such as patients and medical professionals. d) If there is any empirical or anecdotal data available, please address the following. There are no empirical or anecdotal data that is readily available to us. i) What is the prevalence of second medical use claims in your country? 6
7 ii) What is the profile of patentees for second medical use claims in your country? 11) If your country does not permit second medical use claims, please answer the following sub questions. a) What are the policy reasons behind not permitting such claims? b) Would such claims serve the interests of relevant stakeholders? c) Would such claims be considered to better serve the interests of some stakeholders and/or be detrimental to other stakeholders? 12) To what extent does your country's law in relation to second medical use claims affect the pharmaceutical industry (originator and generic) in your country? The Singapore Government has taken steps to develop Singapore as a hub for biological and pharmaceutical research. As such, it is likely that the permissibility of second medical use claims would reinforce Singapore s attractiveness to originators as a viable location for research facilities. The impact of second medical use claims on generic manufacturers is unclear, given that there are no cases on the construction of second medical use claims. Additionally, the US-Singapore FTA introduced patent linkage as one of the requirements for applying for marketing approval. As such, patent linkage may help the drug patent owner in policing potential infringement even before generic drugs are launched. III. Proposals for harmonisation The Groups are invited to put forward proposals for the adoption of harmonised laws in relation to second medical use claims. More specifically, the Groups are invited to answer the following questions without regard to their existing national laws. 13) Is it desirable to permit second medical use claims? Yes. 14) Is harmonisation of laws relating to second medical use claims desirable? Yes. It makes it easier for Applicants if the laws on second use medical claims were consistent so that they do not have to look at the situation according to each country to determine whether or not patenting is available. 15) Please provide a standard that you consider to be best in each of the following areas relating to second medical use claims. a) Types of second medical use constituting permissible subject matter. See, for example, paragraphs 14) - 17) above/wgls. 7
8 First medical uses for known substances and second medical uses are also patentable. This would include drugs initially developed for a particular therapeutic purpose that are found to also be useful for another therapeutic area. Similarly, drugs for which the first known use of the compound did not succeed but are discovered to be useful for another therapeutic area should also be permissible. As mentioned earlier, research into this areas could yield important medical solutions and as such warrant the incentivization provided by the patent system. It is less clear whether new dosage regimes deserve the protection of the patent system. Allowing new dosage regimes to be patented might make it too easy for an originator to obtain a valid patent over a drug which patent is about to expire, effectively extending its monopoly by another twenty years. This would have detrimental effects on various stakeholders such as patients and medical professionals, as the price of the drug would remain costly. However, this problem may be ameliorated by proper application of an inventive step requirement. b) Types of any second medical use constituting impermissible subject matter. See, for example, paragraphs 14) - 17) above/wgls. In light of the potential benefits yielded by research into pre-existing substances, only second medical uses that might encourage immoral or offensive behavior should be unpatentable. c) Form of permissible claims. See, for example, paragraphs 26) - 33) above/wgls. Swiss-type medical claims should be permissible. It is less clear whether purpose-limited product claims should be permissible. In G 02/08, the Enlarged Board of Appeal accepted that the rights conferred by a purpose limited product claim could be broader than that conferred by a Swiss-type claim. In particular, purpose-limited product claims could lead to possible restrictions on the freedom of medical practitioners to prescribe or administer generics. In order to protect the freedom of medical practitioners, it may be necessary to disallow purpose-limited product claims. Alternatively, the implementation of a class specific exemption from infringement for medical practitioners may also be viable. d) Form of impermissible claims. See, for example, paragraphs 26) - 33) above/wgls. Claims for methods of treatment should not be permissible. Allowing methods of treatment to be patented would result in a significant interference with the work of medical professionals. e) Who may be liable for infringement? All parties who do not fall under the exemptions (below) should be liable for infringement. This should include: (i) the party marketing the drug with label instructions which describe the patented use; 8
9 (ii) the manufacturer. f) Any parties/institutions that should be exempted from infringement or liability for infringement. The following parties should be exempted from infringement: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) medical professionals who perform the infringing act in the course of their duties; the prescribing physician; the pharmacist preparing the drug for such a purpose provided the act is extemporaneous; patients, provided their infringing act is private and non-commercial. g) Where a drug is approved for more than one indication, one or more of which (but not all) falls within the claims of a patent, the acts that should constitute patent infringement, and in particular, the standard of knowledge of the alleged infringer. Any act that falls within the claims of the patent should prima facie constitute direct patent infringement. Where a generic manufacturer has adopted skinny labelling, this should not be regarded as direct patent infringement though liability for indirect patent infringement might be appropriate. The alleged infringer s knowledge or intention becomes relevant when considering his liability for indirect infringement. An appropriate standard would be where the alleged infringer is liable if he knew or it was obvious in the circumstances that the end user would infringe the patent. Constructive liability is appropriate for two reasons. Firstly, there are significant difficulties associated with proving actual knowledge and intention. Secondly, in light of the benefits of second medical uses, it is necessary to provide proprietors with robust patent protection. h) Relief available upon a finding of infringement: i) at a preliminary / interim / interlocutory level; and Interlocutory injunctions should be available. ii) by way of permanent relief. The following remedies should be available: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Account of profits; Damages; Permanent injunction; and Order for delivery i) In each case for h)i) and h)ii), the level of proof for the granting of such relief. For interlocutory injunctions, the claimant should have to show that if the injunction is refused, he will not be adequately compensated by an award of damages at the full trial. 9
10 In order to obtain permanent relief, the claimant should have to prove on a balance of probabilities that the defendant has infringed his patent. SUMMARY Singapore allows the patenting of second medical uses provided they are claimed in certain forms. However, the extent of the monopoly accorded to such claims is uncertain as there is no case law that deals with the infringement of a second medical use claim. The Singapore Group recognizes the benefits that arise from a robust protection of second medical use patents. Further, harmonization is desirable and global standards should be derived from a thorough study of the relevant policy objectives underlying the patentability of second medical uses. 10
Second medical use or indication claims. [Please insert name last name in CAPITAL letters please]
Question Q238 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: New Zealand Second medical use or indication claims Michael BROWN, Partner Helen BELLCHAMBERS, Associate A J Park [Please
More informationSecond medical use or indication claims
Question Q238 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: Bulgarian National Group Second medical use or indication claims Valentina NESHEVA Valentina NESHEVA Date: 16 May 2014
More informationSecond medical use or indication claims
Question Q238 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: Egyptian National Group Second medical use or indication claims Eman MOHEY, Gamal ABOU ALI Ahmed ABOU ALI Date: May
More informationSecond medical use or indication claims. Mr. Antonio Ray ORTIGUERA Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices Philippines
Question Q238 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: PHILIPPINES Second medical use or indication claims Mr. Alex Ferdinand FIDER Mr. Antonio Ray ORTIGUERA Angara Abello
More informationSecond medical use or indication claims
Question Q238 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: Canada Second medical use or indication claims Matthew ZISCHKA Santosh CHARI Carol HITCHMANN Roseanne CALDWELL Charles
More informationConstruction of second medical use claims. The Hon. Mr Justice Richard Arnold
Construction of second medical use claims The Hon. Mr Justice Richard Arnold The problem Claim 1 of European Patent (UK) No. 0 934 061 reads: Use of [pregabalin] or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof
More informationPatentable Subject Matter and Medical Use Claims in the Pharmaceutical Sector
Patentable Subject Matter and Medical Use Claims in the Pharmaceutical Sector 2012 LIDC Congress, Prague, 12 October 2012 Dr. Simon Holzer, Attorney-at-Law, Partner 3 October 2012 2 Introduction! Conflicting
More informationNo. According to the PTO s internal examination guidelines, second medical use claims are not patentable.
Question Q238 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: Argentina Second medical use or indication claims Gastón RICHELET, Ricardo D. RICHELET Gastón RICHELET Date: May 19,
More informationWorking Guidelines Q238. Second medical use and other second indication claims
Working Guidelines by Thierry CALAME, Reporter General Sarah MATHESON and John OSHA, Deputy Reporters General Anne Marie VERSCHUR, Sara ULFSDOTTER and Kazuhiko YOSHIDA Assistants to the Reporter General
More informationIntellectual Property Department Hong Kong, China. Contents
Intellectual Property Department Hong Kong, China Contents Section 1: General... 1 Section 2: Private and/or non-commercial use... 3 Section 3: Experimental use and/or scientific research... 3 Section
More informationSecond medical use or indication claims
Question Q238 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: AUSTRIA Second medical use or indication claims Marc KESCHMANN Marc KESCHMANN Date: May 12, 2014 Questions I. Current
More informationCA/PL 7/99 Orig.: German Munich, SUBJECT: Revision of the EPC: Articles 52(4) and 54(5) President of the European Patent Office
CA/PL 7/99 Orig.: German Munich, 2.3.1999 SUBJECT: Revision of the EPC: Articles 52(4) and 54(5) DRAWN UP BY: ADDRESSEES: President of the European Patent Office Committee on Patent Law (for opinion) SUMMARY
More informationSecond Medical Use Patents in Europe: Are the UK and Germany Swapping Approaches?
WHITE PAPER January 2019 Second Medical Use Patents in Europe: Are the UK and Germany Swapping Approaches? The UK Supreme Court s ruling in Warner Lambert v Actavis resulted from deliberations over the
More informationEnglish Language Translation Entry into New Zealand PCT National Phase
2009 Business Updates Request for postponement of acceptance under section 20(1) of the Patents Act 1953 Applicants may at any time prior to acceptance request that a patent application not be accepted
More informationPregabalin: Where stand plausibility, Swiss-form claims, late amendment and more?
University College London IBIL Innovation Seminar 2018 Pregabalin: Where stand plausibility, Swiss-form claims, late amendment and more? Dr. Matthias Zigann Presiding Judge Regional Court Munich I Swiss
More informationREPUBLIC OF VANUATU BILL FOR THE PATENTS ACT NO. OF 1999
REPUBLIC OF VANUATU BILL FOR THE PATENTS ACT NO. OF 1999 Arrangement of Sections PART 1 PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS 1. Interpretation PART 2 PATENTABILITY 2. Patentable invention 3. Inventions not patentable
More informationSwitzerland. Esther Baumgartner Christoph Berchtold Simon Holzer Kilian Schärli Meyerlustenberger Lachenal. 1. Small molecules
Esther Baumgartner Christoph Berchtold Simon Holzer Kilian Schärli Meyerlustenberger Lachenal 1. Small molecules 1.1 Product and process claims Classic drug development works with small, chemically manufactured
More informationThe EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal decides on dosage regimens (G2/08) and treatment by surgery (G1/07)
The EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal decides on dosage regimens (G2/08) and treatment by surgery (G1/07) Dr. Benjamin Quest and Dr. Franz-Josef. Zimmer The two recent decisions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal
More informationPeople s Republic of China State Intellectual Property Office of China
[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Office: People s Republic of China
More informationQuestionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights. The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of:
Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Australia... Office: IP Australia... Person to be contacted: Name:
More informationQuestionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights. The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of:
The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Germany Office: Federal Ministry of Justice and for Consumer Protection / German Patent and Trademark Office Person to be contacted:
More informationHow patents work An introduction for law students
How patents work An introduction for law students 1 Learning goals The learning goals of this lecture are to understand: the different types of intellectual property rights available the role of the patent
More informationSuzannah K. Sundby. canady + lortz LLP. David Read. Differences between US and EU Patent Laws that Could Cost You and Your Startup.
Differences between US and EU Patent Laws that Could Cost You and Your Startup Suzannah K. Sundby United States canady + lortz LLP Europe David Read UC Center for Accelerated Innovation October 26, 2015
More informationUnited Kingdom. By Penny Gilbert, Kit Carter and Stuart Knight, Powell Gilbert LLP
Powell Gilbert LLP United Kingdom United Kingdom By Penny Gilbert, Kit Carter and Stuart Knight, Powell Gilbert LLP Q: What options are open to a patent owner seeking to enforce its rights in your jurisdiction?
More informationIP & IT Bytes. November Patents: jurisdiction and declaratory relief
November 2016 IP & IT Bytes First published in the November 2016 issue of PLC Magazine and reproduced with the kind permission of the publishers. Subscription enquiries 020 7202 1200. Patents: jurisdiction
More informationCHAPTER 53 PHARMACY AND POISONS ORDINANCE ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY PART II PHARMACY
2 CAP. 53 Pharmacy and Poisons LAWS OF CHAPTER 53 PHARMACY AND POISONS ORDINANCE ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY SECTION 1. Short title 2. Interpretation PART II PHARMACY 3. Qualification and
More informationPatent Act, B.E (1979) As Amended until Patent Act (No.3), B.E (1999) Translation
Patent Act, B.E. 2522 (1979) As Amended until Patent Act (No.3), B.E. 2542 (1999) Translation BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX. Given on the 11th day of March, B.E. 2522; Being the 34th year of the present Reign
More informationQuestion Q204P. Liability for contributory infringement of IPRs certain aspects of patent infringement
Summary Report Question Q204P Liability for contributory infringement of IPRs certain aspects of patent infringement Introduction At its Congress in 2008 in Boston, AIPPI passed Resolution Q204 Liability
More informationPlausibility, 2nd medical use and late amendments - The Dutch perspective after UK SC 14 Nov 2018 pregabalin case
20 November 2018 Pregabalin UCL Pregabalin UCL Plausibility, 2nd medical use and late amendments - The Dutch perspective after UK SC 14 Nov 2018 pregabalin case Judge Edger F. Brinkman, senior judge, Court
More informationQuestionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights. The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of:
The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Office: Republic of Poland Patent Office of the Republic of Poland Person to be contacted: Name: Piotr Czaplicki Title: Director,
More informationNotwithstanding Article 29, any invention that is liable to injure public order, morality or public health shall not be patented (Article 32).
Japan Patent Office (JPO) Contents Section 1: General... 1 Section 2: Private and/or non-commercial use... 2 Section 3: Experimental use and/or scientific research... 3 Section 4: Preparation of medicines...
More informationThe Patents Act 1977 (as amended)
The Patents Act 1977 (as amended) An unofficial consolidation produced by Patents Legal Section 17 December 2007 UK Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office 1 Note to users
More informationLEGAL DEVELOPMENTS. The important legal updates from the previous quarter are summarized below: Trade Marks Rules, 2017 Notified
z This Newsletter brings to you the IP updates during the first quarter of this year. The first quarter saw remarkable changes in trademark practice and procedure in India. With substantial changes in
More informationBERMUDA PHARMACY AND POISONS ACT : 26
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA PHARMACY AND POISONS ACT 1979 1979 : 26 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 4A 4B 5 6 7 7A 8 9 10 10A 10B 11 12 13 14 Short title Interpretation The Pharmacy Council Membership of
More information[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights
Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Chile... Office: National Institute of Industrial Property (INAPI)...
More information: Liability for contributory infringement of IPRs certain aspects of patent infringement
Question Q204P National Group : AIPPI Indonesia Title : Liability for contributory infringement of IPRs certain aspects of patent infringement Contributors : Migni Myriasandra Representative within Working
More informationbiblio.ugent.be This item is the archived peer-reviewed author-version of:
biblio.ugent.be The UGent Institutional Repository is the electronic archiving and dissemination platform for all UGent research publications. Ghent University has implemented a mandate stipulating that
More informationTHE GOVERNMENT S RESPONSE TO THE LAW COMMISSION S REPORT (LAW COM NO 346) PATENTS, TRADE MARKS AND DESIGN RIGHTS: GROUNDLESS THREATS
THE GOVERNMENT S RESPONSE TO THE LAW COMMISSION S REPORT (LAW COM NO 346) PATENTS, TRADE MARKS AND DESIGN RIGHTS: GROUNDLESS THREATS The Government responds as follows to the recommendations made in the
More informationBRUNEI Patent Order 2011
BRUNEI Patent Order 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I PRELIMINARY 1. Citation, commencement and long title 2. Interpretation 3. Order to bind Government PART II ADMINISTRATION 4. Registrar of Patents and other
More informationTHE STATUTES OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE BIOLOGICAL AGENTS AND TOXINS ACT (CHAPTER 24A)
THE STATUTES OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE BIOLOGICAL AGENTS AND TOXINS ACT (CHAPTER 24A) (Original Enactment: Act 36 of 2005) REVISED EDITION 2006 (31st December 2006) Prepared and Published by THE LAW
More informationQuestionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights. The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of:
The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Austria... Office: Austrian Patent Office (APO)... Person to be contacted: Name:... Title:... E-mail:... Telephone:... Facsimile:...
More informationPart II. Time limit for completing the International search. Application not searched
II.6. Time limit for completing the International search Art.18(1) PCT The International search report must be ready within the prescribed time limit. R42.1 PCT The International search report (or the
More informationIC Chapter 19. Drugs: Indiana Legend Drug Act
IC 16-42-19 Chapter 19. Drugs: Indiana Legend Drug Act IC 16-42-19-1 Intent of chapter Sec. 1. This chapter is intended to supplement IC 16-42-1 through IC 16-42-4. IC 16-42-19-2 "Drug" Sec. 2. As used
More information[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights
[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Costa Rica... Office: Industrial Property
More informationLaw on the protection of inventions No. 50/2008 of the Republic of Moldova can be found at:
The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Republic of Moldova... Office: The State Agency on Intellectual Property... Person to be contacted: Name: Cicinova Olga... Title:
More informationINDIRECT INFRINGEMENT AND REPAIRS - EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE. Rachel Oxley Mewburn Ellis LLP, London, UK
INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT AND REPAIRS - EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE Rachel Oxley Mewburn Ellis LLP, London, UK OVERVIEW Repairs United Wire v Screen Repair Services Schütz v Werit Indirect Infringement Grimme v Scott
More information2ND SESSION, 41ST LEGISLATURE, ONTARIO 66 ELIZABETH II, Bill 87. (Chapter 11 of the Statutes of Ontario, 2017)
2ND SESSION, 41ST LEGISLATURE, ONTARIO 66 ELIZABETH II, 2017 Bill 87 (Chapter 11 of the Statutes of Ontario, 2017) An Act to implement health measures and measures relating to seniors by enacting, amending
More informationpct2ep.com Guide to claim amendment after EPO regional phase entry
pct2ep.com Guide to claim amendment after EPO regional phase entry Claim amendments in the EPO Guide to the issues to consider After a PCT application enters the EPO regional phase, and before any search
More informationAn introduction to European intellectual property rights
An introduction to European intellectual property rights Scott Parker Adrian Smith Simmons & Simmons LLP 1. Patents 1.1 Patentable inventions The requirements for patentable inventions are set out in Article
More informationQuestionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights. The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of:
The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Office: Bhutan Intellectual Property Division, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Thimphu Person to be contacted: Name: Mr. Sonam
More informationGENERIC EQUIVALENT DRUG LAW Act of Nov. 24, 1976, P.L. 1163, No. 259 AN ACT Relating to the prescribing and dispensing of generic equivalent drugs.
GENERIC EQUIVALENT DRUG LAW Act of Nov. 24, 1976, P.L. 1163, No. 259 AN ACT Cl. 35 Relating to the prescribing and dispensing of generic equivalent drugs. The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
More informationGENEVA STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LAW OF PATENTS. Thirteenth Session Geneva, March 23 to 27, 2009
E WIPO SCP/13/3. ORIGINAL: English DATE: February 4, 2009 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERT Y O RGANI ZATION GENEVA STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LAW OF PATENTS Thirteenth Session Geneva, March 23 to 27, 2009 EXCLUSIONS
More informationSection 1: General. This question does not imply that the topic of exclusions from patentability is dealt with in this question exhaustively.
Section 1: General 1. As background for the exceptions and limitations to patents investigated in this questionnaire, what is the legal standard used to determine whether an invention is patentable? If
More information"And then there were. 18 th Annual Patent Seminar. Gordon Harris, Legal01# v1[GDH]
"And then there were three " Gordon Harris, 2016 18 th Annual Patent Seminar Legal01#57492496v1[GDH] Dedicated to the memory of David Keltie 1938 2016 1 CONTENTS Clause Heading Page 1 Introduction... 3
More information[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights
[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Office: Morocco... Moroccan Industrial
More informationThe Third Amendment to the Patent Law of China. On December 27, 2008, the Standing Committee of the National People's
The Third Amendment to the Patent Law of China On December 27, 2008, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress adopted the third amendment to the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China,
More informationDraft agreement on a Unified Patent Court and draft Statute - Revised Presidency text
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 26 October 2011 16023/11 PI 141 COUR 62 WORKING DOCUMENT from: Presidency to: Delegations No. prev. doc.: 15539/11 PI 133 COUR 59 Subject: Draft agreement on a Unified
More informationINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ARTICLE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ARTICLE How the New Multi-Party Patent Infringement Rulings Written by Brian T. Moriarty, Esq., Deirdre E. Sanders, Esq., and Lawrence P. Cogswell, Esq. The very recent and continuing
More information[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights
[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Office: EL SALVADOR... National Registration
More information[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights
[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: HONDURAS... Office: DIRECTORATE GENERAL
More informationSelection Inventions the Inventive Step Requirement, other Patentability Criteria and Scope of Protection
Question Q209 National Group: Title: Contributors: AIPPI Indonesia Selection Inventions the Inventive Step Requirement, other Patentability Criteria and Scope of Protection Arifia J. Fajra (discussed by
More informationIsrael. Contributing firm Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer
Contributing firm Authors Nachman Cohen Zedek, Dor Cohen Zedek and Yossi Markovich Selection, clearance and registration Israel became party to the Madrid Protocol on September 1 2010. As of September
More informationQUESTION PAPER REFERENCE: FD1 PERCENTAGE MARK AWARDED: 66%
QUESTION PAPER REFERENCE: FD1 PERCENTAGE MARK AWARDED: 66% Question 1 Because the subject matter of the invention relates to military technology there is an obligation on the applicant not to disclose
More informationThe State Law and Order Restoration Council hereby enacts the following Law: Chapter I Title and Definition
The State Law and Order Restoration Council The National Drug Law (The State Law and Order Restoration Council Law No. 7/92) The 5th Waning Day of Tazaungmon, 1354 M.E. (30th October, 1992) The State Law
More informationALABAMA BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 540 X 12 QUALIFIED ALABAMA CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE (QACSC)
Medical Examiners Chapter 540 X 12 ALABAMA BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 540 X 12 QUALIFIED ALABAMA CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE (QACSC) TABLE OF CONTENTS 540
More informationTHE NATIONAL DRUG POLICY AND AUTHORITY STATUE, ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. PART I-PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS. Section. 1. Short title. 2.
THE NATIONAL DRUG POLICY AND AUTHORITY STATUE, 1993. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. PART I-PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS. Section. 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. PART II NATIONAL DRUG POLICY AND AUTHORITY. 3. National
More informationQuestionnaire Apotex Inc. v Sanofi-Aventis Proposed AIPPI intervention Supreme Court of Canada appeal
National Group: Hungarian Title: Reporter: Contributors: Questionnaire Apotex Inc. v Sanofi-Aventis Proposed AIPPI intervention Supreme Court of Canada appeal Dr. PETHŐ, Árpád Dr. PETHŐ, Árpád, MOLNÁR,
More informationThe methods and procedures described must be directly applicable to production.
National Patent Administration Argentina Contents Section 1: General... 1 Section 2: Private and/or non-commercial use... 3 Section 3: Experimental use and/or scientific research... 3 Section 4: Preparation
More informationGeneral Information Concerning. of IndusTRIal designs
General Information Concerning Patents The ReGIsTRaTIon For Inventions of IndusTRIal designs 1 2 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 1. What is a patent? 4 2. How long does a patent last? 4 3. Why patent inventions?
More informationPATENT ACT, B.E (1979) 1. BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX; Given on the 11 th Day of March B.E. 2522; Being the 34 th Year of the Present Reign
Unofficial Translation PATENT ACT, B.E. 2522 (1979) 1 BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX; Given on the 11 th Day of March B.E. 2522; Being the 34 th Year of the Present Reign His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej is
More informationACT HAITI. (Passed 4 August 1955: Le Moniteur, 15 September 1955) PAUL E. MAGLOIRE, President of the Republic -
ACT HAITI (Passed 4 August 1955: Le Moniteur, 15 September 1955) PAUL E. MAGLOIRE, President of the Republic - Having regard to:- Articles 57 and 79 of the Constitution; The Act of 16 July 1923 on Narcotic
More informationAre the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations Working?
Are the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations Working? Edward Hore Hazzard & Hore 141 Adelaide Street West, Suite 1002 Toronto, ON M5H 3L5 (416) 868-1340 edhore@hazzardandhore.com March
More informationCHAPTER Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 4043
CHAPTER 2000-326 Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 4043 An act relating to obsolete, expired, or repealed provisions of law; repealing various provisions of law that have become obsolete, have had
More informationMEDICINES AND RELATED SUBSTANCES AMENDMENT BILL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA MEDICINES AND RELATED SUBSTANCES AMENDMENT BILL (As introduced in the National Assembly (proposed section 7); explanatory summary of Bill published in Government Gazette No. 31114
More informationSAFE IMPORTATION OF MEDICAL PRODUCTS AND OTHER RX THERAPIES ACT OF 2004 (SAFE IMPORT ACT) SECTION-BY-SECTION SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
SAFE IMPORTATION OF MEDICAL PRODUCTS AND OTHER RX THERAPIES ACT OF 2004 (SAFE IMPORT ACT) SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE. SECTION-BY-SECTION Provides that the short title of the bill is the ASafe Importation of Medical
More informationYoung EPLAW Congress. Bolar provision: a European tour. Brussels, 27 April 2015 Guillaume Bensussan Kathy Osgerby Agathe Michel de Cazotte
Young EPLAW Congress Bolar provision: a European tour Brussels, 27 April 2015 Guillaume Bensussan Kathy Osgerby Agathe Michel de Cazotte Introduction Bolar provision: a European tour Part 1 UK A) Recent
More informationDawn of an English Doctrine of Equivalents: immaterial variants infringe
Dawn of an English Doctrine of Equivalents: immaterial variants infringe November 2017 The Supreme Court reinvents patent infringement The Supreme Court s landmark judgment in Actavis v Eli Lilly is a
More information1. Short title and application 2. Interpretation. 21. Regulations
VOLUME: XIII DRUGS AND RELATED SUBSTANCES CHAPTER: 63:04 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I Preliminary SECTION 1. Short title and application 2. Interpretation PART II Control over Drugs PART III Habit-Forming
More informationPRESCRIPTION MONITORING PROGRAM MODEL ACT 2010 Revision
PRESCRIPTION MONITORING PROGRAM MODEL ACT 2010 Revision Section 1. Short Title. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the Prescription Monitoring Program Model Act. Section 2. Legislative Findings
More informationThe relevance of traditional knowledge to intellectual property law
Question Q232 National Group: Dutch Group Title: The relevance of traditional knowledge to intellectual property law Contributors: Lucky BELDER, Klaas BISSCHOP, Roderick CHALMERS HOYNCK VAN PAPENDRECHT,
More information[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights
[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Office: Dominican Republic... National
More informationCurrent Patent Litigation Trends: UK and Germany
Volume 26, Number 7 July 2012 Reproduced with permission from World Intellectual Property Report, 26 WIPR 40, 07/01/2012. Copyright 2012 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com
More informationPATENT ENTITLEMENT YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOP- MENT COMPANY LIMITED v RHÔNE-POULENC RORER INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS INC AND OTHERS
114 PATENT ENTITLEMENT YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOP- MENT COMPANY LIMITED v RHÔNE-POULENC RORER INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS INC AND OTHERS rewards that can be few and far between. The very rationale behind patent
More informationPHARMACY AND POISONS ACT
LAWS OF KENYA PHARMACY AND POISONS ACT CHAPTER 244 Revised Edition 2018 [2012] Published by the National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the Attorney-General www.kenyalaw.org [Rev. 2018]
More informationFINAL REPORT THE PATENTS AND DESIGNS ACT, INTRODUCTION PATENTS
FINAL REPORT ON THE PATENTS AND DESIGNS ACT, 200----- INTRODUCTION PATENTS In England grants of monopoly rights to exploit an invention by the inventor date back to the Elizabethan (Queen Elizabeth I)
More informationFlorida Senate SB 518 By Senator Saunders
By Senator Saunders 1 A bill to be entitled 2 An act relating to controlled substances; 3 creating s. 831.311, F.S.; prohibiting the 4 sale, manufacture, alteration, delivery, 5 uttering, or possession
More informationCOMPULSORY LICENCE in Germany. Markus Rieck LL.M.
COMPULSORY LICENCE in Germany Markus Rieck LL.M. 1 1877 - GERMAN PATENT ACT Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-R68588 / P. Loescher & Petsch / CC-BY-SA 3.0 2 Public interest Dependent patent Plant breeders privilege*
More informationAUSTRALIA Patents Act 1990 Compilation date: 24 February 2017 Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, 2016 Registered: 27 February 2017
AUSTRALIA Patents Act 1990 Compilation date: 24 February 2017 Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, 2016 Registered: 27 February 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introductory 1 Short title 2 Commencement
More informationBefore: MR. JUSTICE HENRY CARR Between:
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 2880 (Pat) Case No: HP-2014-000040 HP-2015-000012, HP-2015-000048 and HP-2015-000062 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
More informationTHE IMPORTANCE OF TRADE SECRET PROTECTION
THE IMPORTANCE OF TRADE SECRET PROTECTION By: Robert H. Thornburg In the field of Intellectual Property, the law of trade secrets often takes a back seat to patent law. However, trade secret protection
More informationPharmaceutical Product Improvements and Life Cycle Management Antitrust Pitfalls 1
Pharmaceutical Product Improvements and Life Cycle Management Antitrust Pitfalls 1 The terms product switching, product hopping and line extension are often used to describe the strategy of protecting
More informationANSWER A TO ESSAY QUESTION 5
ANSWER A TO ESSAY QUESTION 5 Sally will bring products liability actions against Mfr. based on strict liability, negligence, intentional torts and warranty theories. Strict Products Liability A strict
More informationEli Lilly v Actavis. Mark Engelman Head of Intellectual Property
Eli Lilly v Actavis Mark Engelman Head of Intellectual Property mark.engelman@hardwicke.co.uk Topics 1. Literalism 2. Ely Lilly v Actavis The Facts 3. Catnic Components Ltd v Hill & Smith Ltd [1982] RPC
More information4. COMPARISON OF THE INDIAN PATENT LAW WITH THE PATENT LAWS IN U.S., EUROPE AND CHINA
4. COMPARISON OF THE INDIAN PATENT LAW WITH THE PATENT LAWS IN U.S., EUROPE AND CHINA Provisions of the Indian patent law were compared with the relevant provisions of the patent laws in U.S., Europe and
More informationExclusions from patentability 15 Inventions contrary to public order or morality not patentable
New Zealand Patents Act 2013 Public Act 2013 No 68 Date of assent 13 September 2013 Reprint as at 14 September 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Title 2 Commencement Part 1 Preliminary Purposes and overview 3 Purposes
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 26 April 2007 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 26 April 2007 * In Case C-348/04, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom),
More informationPHARMACY AND DRUG ACT
Province of Alberta PHARMACY AND DRUG ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Current as of January 1, 2017 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer 7 th Floor, Park
More informationFINLAND Patents Act No. 550 of December 15, 1967 as last amended by Act No. 101/2013 of January 31, 2013 Enter into force on 1 September 2013
FINLAND Patents Act No. 550 of December 15, 1967 as last amended by Act No. 101/2013 of January 31, 2013 Enter into force on 1 September 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 General Provisions Section 1 Section
More informationSUPPLEMENTARY PROTECTION CERTIFICATES: THE CJEU ISSUES ITS DECISION IN TWO SEMINAL CASES
58 CASE COMMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY PROTECTION CERTIFICATES: THE CJEU ISSUES ITS DECISION IN TWO SEMINAL CASES DR MIKE SNODIN, DR JOHN MILES AND DR MICHAEL PEARS* Potter Clarkson LLP On 24 November 2011, the
More informationLiability for contributory infringement of IPRs certain aspects of patent infringement
Question Q204P National Group: The Netherlands Title: Liability for contributory infringement of IPRs certain aspects of patent infringement Contributors: John Allen, Klaas Bisschop, Arnout Gieske, Willem
More information