Case No. O2016_017 | Decision of 21 June 2019
The patent at stake is, again, MundiPharma‘s EP 2 425 825 B9; see EPO Register and Swissreg. Besides Acino Pharma AG, the plaintiff in the present proceedings, Develco had also successfully sought annulment of the very same patent in parallel proceedings O2016_016; see this Blog here.
Both Acino Pharma and Develco had raised essentially the same arguments with respect to undue extension of subject-matter. Unsurprisingly, the FPC came to the same conclusion: The patent is invalid, the counterclaim for infringement has been dismissed accordingly. Thus, I cannot add much on the merits over what I have already discussed on this Blog here.
On the more procedural side, I would assume that these two cases could pretty efficiently be dealt with by the FPC: Same panel of judges, same judge-rapporteur, same patent, essentially the same arguments. Actually, the expert-opinion of the judge-rapporteur had been issued on the same day, and the judgments are literally identical to large extent. Still, the court fee has been set to kCHF 60, i.e. well according to the regular tariff. Given the circumstances, I wonder whether the court fees could (should?) have been significantly reduced?
Reported by Martin WILMING
Panel of Judges:
- Dr. Daniel M. ALDER
- Dr. Tobias BREMI
- Dr. Hannes SPILLMANN
- Susanne ANDERHALDEN
Representative(s) of Acino:
- Dr. Thierry CALAME (Lenz & Staehelin)
- Dr. Markus BREUER (Henkel Breuer), assisting in patent matters
Representative(s) of Mundipharma:
- Dr. Simon HOLZER (MLL)
- Renato BUCHER (MLL)
- Dr. Dirk BÜHLER (Maiwald), assisting in patent matters
- Dr. Andreas LEDL (Maiwald), assisting in patent matters
DECISION IN FULLFullscreen view (new tab)
PATENT IN SUITFullscreen view (new tab)
BE ON THE KNOW