CN  /  EN

imgboxbg

NEWS

最新消息

The Supreme People's Court of the People’s Republic of China gives a patent infringement guiding case on drug preparation process

  • 分类:最新消息
  • 作者:华讯知识产权
  • 来源:
  • 发布时间:2019-08-06 09:11
  • 访问量:

【概要描述】Drug patents are one of the most economically valuable types of patents. In recent years, the number of patent infringement disputes has increased significantly. If the enterprise infringes the patents of others, it will not only increase the financial burden of the compensation for patent infringement, but also have a negative impact on the corporate image. Whether pharmaceutical companies improve their preparation processes or produce new drugs, they should conduct thorough investigations in advance, and analyze whether there are patents related to their products and production methods. If there are related patents, it is necessary to further determine the protection scope of the patents to know whether the companies infringe the patent rights of others. As for the preparation process of drugs, because the defendant is responsible for the burden of proof in the relevant patent infringement disputes, the pharmaceutical manufacturing enterprises must take certain measures to prevent the adverse consequences caused by the insufficient evidence.

The Supreme People's Court of the People’s Republic of China gives a patent infringement guiding case on drug preparation process

【概要描述】Drug patents are one of the most economically valuable types of patents. In recent years, the number of patent infringement disputes has increased significantly. If the enterprise infringes the patents of others, it will not only increase the financial burden of the compensation for patent infringement, but also have a negative impact on the corporate image. Whether pharmaceutical companies improve their preparation processes or produce new drugs, they should conduct thorough investigations in advance, and analyze whether there are patents related to their products and production methods. If there are related patents, it is necessary to further determine the protection scope of the patents to know whether the companies infringe the patent rights of others. As for the preparation process of drugs, because the defendant is responsible for the burden of proof in the relevant patent infringement disputes, the pharmaceutical manufacturing enterprises must take certain measures to prevent the adverse consequences caused by the insufficient evidence.

  • 分类:最新消息
  • 作者:华讯知识产权
  • 来源:
  • 发布时间:2019-08-06 09:11
  • 访问量:
详情

Drug patents are one of the most economically valuable types of patents. In recent years, the number of patent infringement disputes has increased significantly. If the enterprise infringes the patents of others, it will not only increase the financial burden of the compensation for patent infringement, but also have a negative impact on the corporate image. Whether pharmaceutical companies improve their preparation processes or produce new drugs, they should conduct thorough investigations in advance, and analyze whether there are patents related to their products and production methods. If there are related patents, it is necessary to further determine the protection scope of the patents to know whether the companies infringe the patent rights of others. As for the preparation process of drugs, because the defendant is responsible for the burden of proof in the relevant patent infringement disputes, the pharmaceutical manufacturing enterprises must take certain measures to prevent the adverse consequences caused by the insufficient evidence.

On July 25, 2013, Eli Lilly and Company (next called “Lilly”) claimed that they had a method patent No 91103346.7 and this patent was about the preparation method of the new drug Olanzapine. Watson Pharmaceuticals (next called “Watson”) used the preparation method that felt within the protection scope of related patent to produce the drug Olanzapine and sold in the market. Lilly filed a lawsuit in the Jiangsu High Court and hoped that Watson compensated for its economic loss of RMB 150 million.

南京华讯知识产权顾问有限公司

1. The protection scope of the patent rights involved

The claim 1 of the patent involved was a method claim. The claim was open-ended, in which only the tricyclic reduction and N-methyl piperazine participating in the substitution reaction and the substituted group were defined. The protection scope covered all preparation methods for the formation of Olanzapine by the substitution reaction of the tricyclic reduction product with N-methyl piperazine at the Q group. Regardless of the reaction starting materials, and reaction conditions, they were all within the scope of the protection. To determine the preparation process of Watson whether fall within the protection scope, the key lied in the comparison of the reaction routes of the two technical schemes, wherein the specific reaction starting materials, solvents, reaction conditions, etc. were not included.

2. The Olanzapine preparation process used by Watson

In this case, the parties did not disagree with Olanzapine as the new product in the patent law. So Watson should bear the burden of proof for its Olanzapine preparation process different from the patent method involved. Specifically, Watson should provide evidence that the actual Olanzapine preparation process reaction route had not fallen within the protection scope. Watson advocated that it had been using the supplemental filing process from the State Food and Drug Administration in 2008 to produce Olanzapine since 2003. And Watson submitted its 2003 and 2008 Olanzapine batch production records, 2003, 2007 and 2013 production regulations, “drug supplement application approval” and other evidence to prove its actual use of Olanzapine preparation process.

The Supreme Court held that Watson could produce evidence that Olanzapine was produced using the 2008 supplemental filling process during the period from 2003 to the maturity date of the patent. First of all, Watson filed a registration application for Olanzapine supplementation with the State Food and Drug Administration in 2008, and clearly stated the reaction route of its Olanzapine preparation process in its “Registration Information for Olanzapine Drug and Supplement Application”. The “Technical Appraisal Report” also considered in its conclusion that “the production process of Olanzapine filed by Watson in 2008 to the China Food and Drug Administration is feasible”. Therefore, in the absence of other evidence to the contrary, it should be presumed that Watson’s 2008 supplemental filling process was the Olanzapine preparation process used after obtaining the “Approval for Drug Replenishment”. Secondly, from the research and development stage to the actual production stage, the long-term technical accumulation process was usually to optimize the adjustment of reaction conditions and operation details for the defects found in the actual production while keeping the basic reaction route stable. It could be seen that Watson had owned the same Olanzapine preparation process as its 2008 supplemental record process in 1999. It was unlikely that Watson would produce Olanzapine using other preparative processes with completely different reaction routes before the 2008 supplemental filling process. Finally, the China Food and Drug Administration issued a “Approval of Drug Additions” to Watson on September 8, 2010, stating: “The changed production process is based on the original synthetic route changing the original synthetic route. The adjustment is solvents and reagents used in the process”. That is, the China Food and Drug Administration confirmed that Watson’s 2008 supplemental filling process was the same as its previous preparation process.

Basically, the Supreme People’s Court compared the reaction route of Watson and the method of the involved patent, and believed that the differences between the two were the reaction steps, the key intermediates and the corresponding technical characteristics. Besides, the technical means were different and the technical effects achieved were different. So they were not the equivalent features. Therefore, the preparation process of Olanzapine of Watson did not fall within the protection scope of the involved patent.

The case is a guiding case issued by the Supreme People’s Court. It reflects the difficulties and hot spots of patent infringement disputes in drug preparation process. And it plays a guiding role for the trial of patent infringement disputes in drug preparation process at all levels of courts across the country. In the absence of other evidence to the contrary, it shall be presumed that the filing process of the alleged infringing drug in the drug regulatory department is its actual preparation process. If there is evidence that the registration process of the alleged infringed drug is untrue, it shall examine the technical source, production regulations, batch production records, and determine the actual preparation process of the infringed drug.

For the drug manufacturers, if they are sued by the patentee of the drug preparation method, the filing process in the State Food and Drug Administration may be most critical evidence material. Therefore, to avoid patent infringement dispute, it is necessary not only to search and analysis the related patents, but also to report the drug preparation process to the drug regulatory department. In the production process, it is necessary to manage and file the batch production records, production procedures and drug replenishment application approval documents timely. Documents about the preparation process of drugs from the State Food and Drug Administration shall be kept properly. These documents may be helpful evidence that the preparation process of the company is different from the patented method.

关键词:

2021年度专利复审无效十大案件

2021年度专利复审无效十大案件

2021年度专利复审无效十大案件 专利复审和无效审理是对专利权利的保护范围大小甚至权利的有无进行再次认定的程序,决定着专利权的保护基础,一直备受社会关注。4月26日,2021年度专利复审无效十大案件在国家知识产权局开放日活动中正式发布。 案例1.“新颖的磺酰胺类化合物及其作为内皮素受体拮抗剂的应用”发明专利无效案(专利号:ZL01820481.3) 案情简介:专利权人:埃科特莱茵药品有限公司,无效宣告请求人:南京正大天睛制药有限公司。本案涉及的药品马昔腾坦,是首个获批用于治疗肺动脉高压的口服制剂。本案系仿制药申请人在提交仿制药申请后,针对原研药发起的专利挑战。案件审理过程中涉及化学医药领域的多个法律问题,包括权利要求中技术术语的理解、马库什权利要求的性质、马库什化合物和具体化合物优先权的认定、表格化合物充分公开的判断、补充实验数据以及化合物创造性的判断等。 审理结论:在修改的基础上维持有效。 典型意义:本案是药物化合物审理的典型案例,对于优先权的认定、表格化合物充分公开的判断以及化合物创造性的判断具有示范作用。 案例2.“被取代的多环性氨基甲酰基吡啶酮衍生物的前药”发明专利无效案(专利号:ZL201180056716.8) 案情简介:专利权人:盐野义制药株式会社,无效宣告请求人:刘奕彤。本案涉及的玛巴洛沙韦是目前获批的首个、也是唯一一个单剂量口服抗流感药物。案件审理过程中涉及马库什权利要求能否获得说明书的支持,如何准确评价说明书对技术效果的公开以及结构类似的化合物的创造性判断等法律问题。 审理结论:维持有效 典型意义:本案对于准确评价说明书描述的技术效果以及马库什权利要求能否得到说明书支持具有借鉴意义;还阐述了对于“结构类似但用途不同的化合物”,在创造性评判时应当对现有技术提供的机理研究成果进行全面考察,如果其与涉案专利的作用机制缺乏内在联系,则不能从中获得对化合物结构改进以实现不同用途的技术启示。 案例3.“通过图像采集获取网络连接的数据传输方式及其系统”的发明专利无效案(专利号:ZL201010523284.4) 案情简介:专利权人为上海科斗电子科技有限公司,无效宣告请求人为掌阅科技股份有限公司。在本案的无效宣告程序中,双方均提交了大量证据,案件复杂度高,口头审理后,请求人提出了撤案声明。本案审理的重点在于当请求人提出了撤案请求时,审理程序是否终止,即对专利法实施细则第七十二条第2款规定的理解和适用。 审理结论:宣告无效 典型意义:本案对于当事人撤回其请求但审理程序可以不终止的法律规定进行诠释,合理平衡专利权人与社会公众的利益。 案例4.“左心耳封堵器”的发明专利无效案(专利号:ZL201310567987.0) 案情简介:专利权人:先健科技(深圳)有限公司,无效宣告请求人:蔡景莉。本案请求人对专利权人的多个专利权提起了无效宣告请求,本案是其中一件。本案审理中,请求人主张涉案专利缺乏新颖性和创造性,并提交相关现有技术证据。专利权人则主张请求人提出的主要证据属于在申请日以前六个月内“他人未经申请人同意而泄露其内容的”情形,因而涉案专利应享有“新颖性宽限期”,请求人提交的证据不能破坏其新颖性和创造性。 审理结论:宣告无效 典型意义:本案对于“新颖性宽限期”的适用进行诠释,充分论述了对“他人未经申请人同意而泄露其内容”能否享受现有技术豁免的认定思路,明确对于他人未经同意而泄露发明创造内容的情形,如果证据能够表明专利权人在已经知晓情况后两个月内仍未提出声明和提交证明文件,则不能享有新颖性的宽限期。决定强调,专利权人在知晓他人未经同意而泄露技术内容时,应及时履行必要的声明义务。 案例5.“轴流风轮”的发明专利无效案(专利号:ZL200710026747.4) 案情简介:专利权人:广东美的制冷设备有限公司,无效宣告请求人:珠海格力电器股份有限公司。美的、格力、奥克斯是国内空调行业的三大竞争巨头,他们之间的专利纷争不断,本案为格力对美的提出的第二次无效宣告请求,案件所涉及的用于空调外机上的轴流风轮对空调效能具有重要影响,是三家企业专利大战的关键专利之一。 审理结论:宣告无效 典型意义:本案涉及单方委托鉴定报告证据效力的认定,同时,对采用参数定义的产品权利要求与使用公开证据的技术比对提供了审理思路。   案例6.“图像传感器CS3825C”的集成电路布图设计专有权撤销案(登记号:BS.175539928) 案情简介:专利权人:珠海市矽旺半导体有限公司,撤销意见提出人:深圳市芯智锐光电科技有限公司。本案审理涉及多个撤销条款,包括有关保护客体的条例第二条,有关独创性的条例第四条,有关申请登记期限的条例第七条。 审理结论:维持有效 典型意义:本案诠释了专有权保护对象、独创性审理范围以及申请登记期限的判断规则,对布图设计案件的审理具有借鉴意义。 案例7.“仪表机壳”的外观设计专利无效案(专利号:ZL201030122941.5) 案情简介:专利权人:福建顺昌虹润精密仪器有限公司,无效宣告请求人:厦门希科自动化科技有限公司。本案审理过程中涉及多个争议焦点,包括“中间产品”是否属于外观设计保护的客体、判断主体的确定,以及外观设计的对比判断规则。 审理结论:宣告无效 典型意义:本案阐明了作为判断主体的“一般消费者”应当具有的知识水平和认知能力,分析了各设计特征对于整体视觉效果的不同影响权重。 案例8.“防爆装置”的实用新型专利无效案(专利号:ZL201521112402.7) 案情简介:专利权人:宁德时代新能源科技股份有限公司,无效宣告请求人:江苏塔菲尔新能源科技股份有限公司、东莞塔菲尔新能源科技有限公司。本案审理过程中主要争议焦点在于两个方面,一是对技术方案的理解,二是作为技术改进点的多个结构特征对创造性判断的影响。 审理结论:在修改的基础上维持有效。 典型意义:本案是新能源领域结构类产品创造性判断的典型案例,决定强调,判断是否存在技术启示时,应对区别特征之间的关系予以关注,在准确认定涉案专利实际要解决的技术问题和能够达到的技术效果的基础上,客观判断现有技术是否给出了相应的技术启示。 案例9.“用于治疗潜伏性结核的喹啉衍生物” “取代的喹啉衍生物在治疗耐药性分枝杆菌性疾病中的用途”的发明专利无效案(专利号:ZL201210507318.X、ZL200580017016.2) 案情简介:专利权人:詹森药业有限公司,无效宣告请求人:王立群。本系列案涉及两项专利权,该两项专利涉及全球45年来首个抗结核药物“贝达喹啉”。本系列案审理过程中涉及多个争议焦点,包括对权利要求特定技术术语的理解、如何考量说明书实验数据,以及对医药用途发明改进动机与合理成功预期的判断等。 审理结论:在修改的基础上维持有效。 典型意义:本案明确了在医药用途发明的创造性判断中,应当准确评价是否存在“合理的成功预期”。 案例10.“一种用于给排水的活接接头”的实用新型专利无效案(专利号:ZL201920390483.9) 案情简介:专利权人:浙江天雁控股有限公司,无效宣告请求人:孟祥麟。本案审理过程中涉及举证责任、对电子证据真实性的确定、使用公开证据链的认定,以及实用性的判断等诸多法律问题。 审理结论:维持有效。 典型意义:本案明晰了在核实证据优先权时,本国优先权文件的举证责任分配和获取途径。同时,本案还诠释了对实用性意义上“能够产生积极效果”的理解,以及对微信聊天记录、展会等不同类型证据真实性和证明力的认定规则。      
2022-05-13
The

The 2021 patent index targets current patent statistics and trends in Europe

The EPO acts as executive body for the European Patent Organization, an intergovernmental organization that was set up on 7 October 1977 on the basis of the European Patent Convention, to “strengthen co-operation between the States of Europe in respect of the protection of inventions” and establish a single procedure for the grant of patents abiding by certain standard rules.
2022-04-22
Chile

Chile is the first country to pass neurorights law

On October 25th, 2021, the Senate of the Republic of Chile unanimously approved a bill to amend the constitution to protect brain rights or “neurorights”. Chile became the first nation to have a constitution in force that explicitly addresses the challenges of emerging neurotechnologies. 
2022-04-15
消费公益诉讼赔偿的新路径

消费公益诉讼赔偿的新路径

消费公益诉讼,是指由于商品生产者、服务经营者的不法或不合理经营行为,侵害了众多消费者合法权益或者存在可能对众多消费者合法权益造成侵害的威胁,使整个社会的正常商业秩序和消费者公众利益遭受或者存在侵害威胁之时,国家机关、相关的消费者团体组织或者消费者个人为维护消费者公众利益而向法院提起诉讼的制度。
2022-04-08
上一页
1
2
...
149
这是描述信息

江苏省南京市江北新区江淼路88号腾飞大厦B座20层2001

版权所有◎南京华讯知识产权顾问有限公司

备案号:苏ICP备xxxxxx号-1    网站建设:中企动力 南京