Final Order Of The Court Of First Instance Of The Unified Patent Court Delivered On 26/06/2024

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
The patent claim is always to be interpreted from the point of view of a person skilled in the art.
Germany Intellectual Property

1. Key takeaways

Determining the scope of protection based on the patent claim

The patent claim is always to be interpreted from the point of view of a person skilled in the art.

The skilled person takes into account the purpose of every patent claim to provide them with a technical teaching which, when reworked, leads to the intended success of the invention.

Assessment of validity of a patent-in-suit in preliminary injunction proceedings

The court must be convinced of the validity of a patent with a sufficient degree of certainty. Such "sufficient certainty" is lacking if the court considers it to be more likely than not that the patent at issue is not valid.

The court has to form its own view on the validity of the patent-in-suit. In proceedings for preliminary measures, however, the court cannot base its decision solely on its own view of the validity of the patent-in-suit if an opposition against the patent is pending at the EPO. In this situation, the UPC also has to consider the likelihood that the opposition division of the EPO will revoke the patent. For if the UPC regards a patent as valid, this decision would be overruled by an invalidity decision in the EPO opposition proceedings.

2. Division Hamburg – Local Division

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_124/2024

4. Type of proceedings

Preliminary injunction

5. Parties

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Boston – US (Applicant),

Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company, Dublin, Ireland (Defendant 1),

Amgen N.V., Machelen, Belgium (Defendant 2),

Amgen GmbH Munich, Germany (Defendant 3),

Amgen GmbH, Vienna, Austria (Defendant 4),

Amgen AB, Solna, Sweden (Defendant 5),

Amgen S.A.S., Boulogne-Billancourt, France (Defendant 6),

Amgen s.r.l., Milan, Italy (Defendant 7),

Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda., Lisboa, Portugal (Defendant 8),

Amgen Zdravila D.O.O., Ljubljana, Slowenia (Defendant 9)

6. Patent(s)

EP 3 167 888 B1

7. Jurisdictions

Patent with unitary effect

8. Body of legislation / Rules

Art, 62 (2) UPCA; Rule 209.2 RoP;

Art. 62 (4) UPCA; Rule 211.2 RoP

2024-06-26 LD Hamburg UPC_CFI_124-2024 ORD_38032-2024 ACT_13886-2024 anonymizied

Download

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More