Case No. 4A_332/2019 (Supreme Court) | Order of 13 November 2019, on appeal against O2018_009 (FPC) | Decision of 27 May 2019 | ‘Patentnichtigkeit Fulvestrant’
A quick recap: Actavis had challenged validity of AZ’s Swiss part of EP 2 266 573 back in 2015, and the FPC had indeed held in 2017 that EP 573 was invalid for lack of inventive step; see this Blog here. However, the Supreme Court overruled that decision and remitted the case back to the FPC for re-assessment of obviousness; see this Blog here. In the second round, the FPC held that the subject-matter of EP 573 did involve an iventive step; see the decision O2018_009 of 27 May 2019. In brief, the FPC held that neither
-
- Howell (referred to as D15) in further view of McLeskey (referred to as D13); nor
- McLeskey alone, or in further view of Howell or yet another Howell; or
- EP 0 346 014 (referred to as D1) in further view of McLeskey
rendered the claimed subject-matter obvious. That decision was again appealed to the Supreme Court, and I have been eagerly awaiting a good read. But nothing like that. The Supreme Court only published a dismissal order. The parties have apparently reached an amicable settlement; court fees are shared.
Reported by Martin WILMING
—
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Case No. 4A_332/2019 (Supreme Court) | Order of 13 November 2019, on appeal against O2018_009 (FPC) | Decision of 27 May 2019 | ‘Patentnichtigkeit Fulvestrant’
| Mepha Schweiz AG (formerly Actavis Switzerland AG) |
(Appellant / Plaintiff) |
| ./. | |
| AstraZeneca AB | (Respondent / Defendant) |
Single Judge:
-
- Dr. Kathrin KLETT
Court Clerk:
-
- Dr. Thomas WIDMER
Representative(s) of Appellant / Plaintiff:
-
- Dr. Thierry CALAME (Lenz & Staehelin)
- Lara DORIGO (Lenz & Staehelin)
Representative(s) of Respondent / Defendant:
—
SUPREME COURT DECISION
Fullscreen view (new tab)—
FPC DECISION
Fullscreen view (new tab)—
EP 2 266 573 B1
Fullscreen view (new tab)—
BE ON THE KNOW
One Reply to “The Supreme Court will not have its say on O2018_009 re Fulvestrant”