Mundipharma Pharmaceuticals B.V. v. Sandoz B.V. District Court The Hague, The Netherlands, 7 April 2010, Docket No. 340373 / 09-2029, including the English translation, both with thanks to Willem Hoyng, Howrey
*Now including the English translation*
In today's judgment the District Court of The Hague ruled that Mundipharma's EP 730 as granted relating to the controlled release oxycodone formulation, OxyContin®, is valid and infringed by Sandoz' 10 and 20 mg dosages. The District Court grants a provisional injunction against Sandoz while awaiting the outcome of the appeal in the pending opposition proceedings.
The judgment deals extensively with the invalidity arguments as put forward by Sandoz (added matter; (undisclosed) disclaimer; insufficient disclosure; lack of novelty; lack of inventive step).
A comment on the decision will follow shortly.
Read the judgment (in Dutch) here. Read the judgment (in English) here.
Mundipharma GmbH v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals GmbH et al, Landgericht Düsseldorf, Germany, 30 March 2010, Case No. 4a O 13/10
In the international dispute between Mundipharma and various suppliers of generic versions of the controlled release oxycodone formulation, OxyContin®, the Landgericht Düsseldorf granted a preliminary injunction against Sandoz. The Landgericht Düsseldorf dismissed the various non-infringement arguments raised by Sandoz and considered the patent to be valid.
In coming to its decision on validity, the Landgericht extensively dealt with the invalidity-arguments raised by Sandoz and specifically referred to previous decisions of the courts in the UK and The Netherlands which had upheld parallel oxycodone patents. Interestingly, the Landgericht Düsseldorf did not follow the decision of the Bundespatentgericht which had invalidated one of Mundipharma's oxycodone-patents in view of the same prior art that was put before the Landgericht by Sandoz in the preliminary injunction proceedings.
The new French law on the "Fight against infringement" now offers the opportunity to take action against imminent infringement. Pauline Debre, Bird & Bird, discusses the first case in which a French judge has ordered a preliminary measure in a case of imminent infringement.
"On October 20, 2009, the Lyon Court of Appeal upheld a decision of the President of the Lyon First Instance Court, and became the first jurisdiction in France to apply one of the new provisions of Law n°2007-1544 of 29 October 2007 on the "Fight against Infringement".
This provision (new article L.615-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code) gives the patentee the possibility of requesting that the judge in charge of summary proceedings order preliminary measures to prevent an imminent infringement if it is likely that the patentee’s rights are about to be infringed. Previously the Court could only forbid the continuation of infringing acts.
In this case, two pharmaceutical companies, MUNDIPHARMA GmbH, the owner of a patent covering a controlled release formulation of Tramadol (an analgesic), and GRUNENTHAL, the exclusive licensee of the patent, asked the judge of the summary proceedings to order preliminary measures against Mylan.