Astellas Pharma Inc. v. Synthon B.V., District Court Eastern Netherlands/The Hague, The Netherlands, 1 February 2013, Case No.234794 / KG ZA 12-533, C/09/429848 / KG ZA 12-1189, with thanks to Willem Hoyng, Frank Eijsvogels and Robin van Kleeff, Hoyng Monegier, for sending in the judgment and a translation in English
Astellas holds a patent for a sustained release preparation, and claimed that Synthon’s sustained release tamsulosin products infringe upon that patent. The PIL listed inter alia the Dutch entity Synthon B.V. (“Synthon”) as manufacturer of the products. Following leave by the Court, Astellas provisionally seized documents at the premises of Synthon, for evidence that Synthon had indeed committed infringing or unlawful acts.
Subsequently, the provisional relief judge was requested to order Synthon to grant access to the documents. This claim succeeded. The judge reiterated that access to documents which are seized as evidence can only be granted if claimant is able to show to a reasonable degree that there is an infringement, and is able to sufficiently rebut the arguments made by the other side that there is not. The confidentiality of the seized documents also plays a role: the higher the confidentiality, the more likely the infringement should be to gain access (and vice-versa).
Astellas holds a patent for a sustained release preparation, and claimed that Synthon’s sustained release tamsulosin products infringe upon that patent. The PIL listed inter alia the Dutch entity Synthon B.V. (“Synthon”) as manufacturer of the products. Following leave by the Court, Astellas provisionally seized documents at the premises of Synthon, for evidence that Synthon had indeed committed infringing or unlawful acts.
Subsequently, the provisional relief judge was requested to order Synthon to grant access to the documents. This claim succeeded. The judge reiterated that access to documents which are seized as evidence can only be granted if claimant is able to show to a reasonable degree that there is an infringement, and is able to sufficiently rebut the arguments made by the other side that there is not. The confidentiality of the seized documents also plays a role: the higher the confidentiality, the more likely the infringement should be to gain access (and vice-versa).
Recent Comments