Case No. 4A_613/2019 (Supreme Court) | Decision of 11 May 2020 on appeal against O2017_009 (FPC) | Decision of 7 November 2019
MundiPharma’s EP(CH) 2 425 821 B1 and EP(CH) 2 425 824 B1 had been revoked by the FPC with decision of 7 November 2019; O2017_009. Accordingly, MundiPharma’s counterclaim for infringement failed. A detailed comment on that decision is available on this Blog here.
MundiPharma had appealed the decision, but only with respect to EP(CH) 821:
The decision of the Supreme Court gives an overview of some relevant decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO concerning Art. 123(2) EPC in ¶ 3.2, which the Supreme Court apparently endorses without hesitation. As to the matter at hand, the Supreme Court confirms that the FPC had correctly applied these principles and that the subject-matter of EP(CH) 821 is the result of an unallowable singling out of at least two features from different lists. The resulting combination of features, i.e. the weight ratio of oxycodone to naloxone of 2:1 in combination with the reduction of obstipation, is not directly and unambiguously disclosed in the application as originally filed; see ¶¶ 3.3 and 3.4. In particular, MundiPharma could not establish how the skilled person would have derived the specific weight ratio and the reduction of obstipation in combination from the application as filed:
Further, the Supreme Court did not spot a violation of MundiPharma’s right to be heard because the FPC allegedly did not take the skilled person’s knowledge into account. The Supreme Court holds that the FPC in fact did take it into account, and that MundiPharma essentially only argues that it had a different opinion of how the law and case-law should be applied to the case at hand:
Finally, the Supreme Court dealt with MundiPharma’s objection concerning the apportionment of costs. It may well be that in a nullity case the necessary expenses incurred by the assisting patent attorney exceeds the amount that can be refunded for legal representation according to the tariff:
Oral proceedings before a Board of Appeal in co-pending proceedings at the EPO are scheduled for 23 September 2021, to be continued on 24 September 2021 if necessary. No preliminary opinion of the Board is available yet.
Reported by Martin WILMING
—
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Case No. 4A_613/2019 (Supreme Court) | Decision of 11 May 2020 on appeal against O2017_009 (FPC) | Decision of 7 November 2019
MundiPharma Medical Company | (Appellant / Defendant) |
./. | |
Develco Pharma Schweiz AG | (Respondent / Plaintiff) |
Panel of Judges:
-
- Dr. Christina KISS
-
- Dr. Fabienne HOHL
-
Dr. Martha NIQUILLE
- Dr. Yves RÜEDI
- Marie-Chantal MAY-CANNELLAS
Court Clerk:
-
- Christian STÄHLE
Representative(s) of Appellant / Defendant:
Representative(s) of Respondent / Plaintiff:
-
- Andrea MONDINI (TIMES)
—
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT → appeal against FPC decision to revoke EP(CH) 2 425 821 B1 |
|
Case no.: | 4A_613/2019 |
Decision of: | 11 May 2020 |
The unredacted decision had been submitted by the Respondent / Plaintiff in the co-pending opposition / appeal proceedings at the EPO: |
—
DECISION OF THE FPC → Revocation of EP(CH) 2 425 821 B1 |
|
Case no.: | O2017_009 |
Decision of: | 7 November 2020 |
—
PATENT IN SUIT
—
BE ON THE KNOW