JURISDICTION REPORT: ROMANIA
ENFORCEMENT OF MODIFIED EUROPEAN PATENTS
Dragosh Marginean Ratza & Ratza
Te Romanian courts have recently been confronted with an issue that has not been previously been brought before them. Te issue relates to the enforcement of a European patent which has been modified during opposition proceedings.
One of the most successful products commercialised by pharmaceutical company F. Hoffmann La Roche is the osteoporosis medicine marketed under the trademark Bonviva. Two European patents covered this product. Te first one (covering the active substance: ibandronic acid) expired in June 2011 while the second patent (covering a certain dosage and administration method) has an expiration date of May 2023.
Eight generics companies filed oppositions against the granting of the second patent. During the opposition proceedings the owner of the patent decided not to defend the version of the patent initially granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) and filed a new set of claims (five claims instead of the initial eight). A further amendment of this new set of claims was performed during the proceedings, with the last version having only four claims.
Considering this new set of claims, the opposition division decided to reject the opposition and upheld the patent in its new, four-claim, form. Te decision was promptly appealed by five of the eight opponents. Te appeal is currently pending before the EPO.
Within this background, two of the generics companies involved in the opposition proceedings decided to launch their products in a number of jurisdictions, including Romania, immediately aſter the expiration date of the first patent covering the active substance (ibandronic acid).
Naturally, this did not sit well with Hoffmann La Roche which acted promptly and filed preliminary injunction requests, as well as infringement actions, against both generics companies.
Te injunction requests and infringement actions were based on the amended version of the patent as modified in the opposition proceedings (ie, the four-claim version). Te generics companies claimed that this version of the patent is not valid in Romania. Te only version of the patent that could be considered valid in Romania was the initial eight-claim version.
Te amended version resulting from the opposition proceedings is not valid in Romania because the appeal filed against the opposition decision has suspended the effects of the decision. As a result, the version of the patent upheld in the opposition proceedings will not produce any effects. Similar jurisprudence from other European jurisdictions was provided in support of these claims.
Te Bucharest Municipal Court heard both preliminary injunction requests. Although the court agreed with the position of the generics
70 World Intellectual Property Review May/June 2012
“THE AMENDED VERSION RESULTING FROM THE OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS IS NOT VALID IN ROMANIA BECAUSE THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE OPPOSITION DECISION HAS SUSPENDED THE EFFECTS OF THE DECISION.”
companies and found that the amended version of the patent is not valid in Romania, the court considered that, of its own motion, it has the right and obligation to examine whether an apparent infringement of the initial version of the patent does exist.
Following the reasoning above, the court found that the conditions were met for the granting of a preliminary injunction based on the initial version of the patent.
As expected, both decisions issued by the court were promptly appealed by the generics companies.
Te appeals were heard by the Bucharest Court of Appeals and two very similar decisions were issued. Tis time, however, the court found in favour of the generics companies and considered that since the injunction requests were based on the amended version of the patent which is not valid in Romania, the court had no choice but to reject the request.
Te appeals were heard by three-member panels, and in one case one judge had a divergent opinion, proving that the issue has raised some serious problems for the courts hearing the cases and that, although the final decisions were both in the same direction, we can not yet state that an established jurisprudence in this matter exists.
Te decisions of the Court of Appeals prompted F. Hoffmann La Roche to modify the infringement actions filed against the same generics companies to include the initial version of the patent. However, it is very likely that by the time a decision is taken in the infringement cases, the EPO will issue a decision in the appeal proceedings, which will definitively settle the fate of the patent and consequently have an impact on the infringement proceedings in Romania.
Dragosh Marginean is a senior partner at Ratza & Ratza in Bucharest, Romania. He can be contacted at:
dm@ratza-ratza.com
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84