tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5203930521991497134..comments2024-03-29T06:00:27.896+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Teva v Gilead: Swiss court bashes ECJ on SPC "mess"Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-7659676112927129642017-10-27T19:16:20.229+01:002017-10-27T19:16:20.229+01:00Same in France with decision of Sep 5, 2017; see h...Same in France with decision of Sep 5, 2017; see http://thespcblog.blogspot.ch/2017/09/tenofovir-high-court-decision-in-france.html Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12215790347830915930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-19624877662454626042017-10-27T09:52:58.730+01:002017-10-27T09:52:58.730+01:00In a very recent decision of 26.10.2017 from the M...In a very recent decision of 26.10.2017 from the Maritime and Commercial Court of Denmark <br /><br />http://domstol.fe1.tangora.com/media/-300011/files/A-23-17.pdf?rev1<br /><br />it was held that Gilead's request for an interim injunction against Accord Healthcare Limited could not be granted based on Gilead's SPC as it was considered that the SPC was invalid.<br /><br />The Court found that while Gilead has rendered probable that the SPC was infringed if valid, Accord had credibly shown (godtgjort) that the SPC was not valid in light of the court's interpretation of the jurisprudence of the CJEU and hence could not serve as basis for an interim injunction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-53699363299913603932017-10-26T22:18:28.316+01:002017-10-26T22:18:28.316+01:00See also the review of this decision on FPC Review...See also the review of this decision on FPC Review here: https://www.patentlitigation.ch/infringement-test-still-alive-switzerland-surrounded-post-medeva-eu/Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12215790347830915930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-39254549956040571062017-10-26T14:24:32.893+01:002017-10-26T14:24:32.893+01:00Whilst it's easy to criticise the judgements o...Whilst it's easy to criticise the judgements of the CJEU I'm not aware of anyone (practitioner, academic or judge) providing details of what the test should be in universal terms. As with double patenting there is no easy way to define how the relationship between two 'scopes' of subject matter should be analysed, and so the case law has been changing with the facts of each case. Perhaps that is simply inevitable until we have had all combinations of factual situations judged on, and the test will simply be a long list of different criteria.<br /><br />I also think the Court was a bit lazy to decide they did not need to harmonise with CJEU law. That cannot be a long term solution for this tricky area of law<br /><br /> Kualanoreply@blogger.com