Editor's note: plaintiff Accord Healthcare S. L. U. Company and Sandoz Farmacéutica S. A. Company versus defendant AstraZeneca AB A European patent owned by the company, valid in Spain, is invalid. The subject of the patent in question is, Contains dibenzothiazide derivatives (Active ingredient "quetiapine" ) Ingredients of sustained release drugs. Let's take a look!

[background] Accord Healthcare S. L. U. Company and Sandoz Farmacéutica S. A. company (Hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff" ) right AstraZeneca AB company (Hereinafter referred to as "defendant" ) Owned a European patent that was valid in Spain. The subject of the patent in question is, Contains dibenzothiazide derivatives (Active ingredient "quetiapine" ) Ingredients of sustained release drugs. Primary telling scale, In quetiapine composition and use hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose (HPMC) The methods for preparing sustained-release preparations are known to the public, For ordinary technologists who are familiar with the technology available in the field before the patent priority date, Use a gelling agent (namely HPMC) The way to prepare quetiapine sustained-release preparations is obvious, So the patents in question lack innovation.

[conclusion] The first question that the retrial court resolves is, "The premise of this case is that, The general technical staff is a team of specialists consisting of a specialist in pharmaceutical preparations and a specialist in psychiatry" , In the end, the appeals court ruled that the patent in question was not innovative, based on the testimony of non-psychiatrists, Whether there was a clear error in the appellate court's evidence assessment process, violate "European patent convention" The first 56 Provision of article? The court held that, judgment "innovation" Ought to "General technician (average skilled person) " As a reference. "General technician" It's a fiction, An expert in the field of invention, Understand the general knowledge of the field. He is an expert in the field of technical problems, But I don't know the solution. He's not creative, uncreative (Different from the inventor) , And are influenced by existing technologies in the field that existed up to the date of invention. Composition of the case "Technical personnel" The team consisted of a specialist in pharmaceutical preparations and a psychiatrist, While evaluating the invention in question, yes "General technician" When it's obvious, The psychiatrist cited a lot of advice from another non-psychiatrist, But that does not mean that the assessment on which the decision was made did not take into account the psychiatrist's own knowledge. The court stated that, The patent applicant's practice violates the above principles: The technical problem to be solved has been clearly stated in the specification of the patent involved, But now the applicant is again "Advocate expanding the scope of technical issues" . In good faith, The principle of responsibility for one's own actions and the principle of legal certainty, It should be recognized that the technical problem described by the applicant in the patent is the problem to be solved by the invention in question. In fact, The retrial court agreed with the defence, That is, the review of innovation should clarify that specific combinations of existing technologies have implications in existing technologies, Or maybe the combination is obvious to the average technician. but, The court goes on to say that, Agreed that the above should be clarified before examining innovation, It does not mean that the verdict should be overturned, "Because obviousness is judged without detailed explanation of the document selection criteria that make up the prior art, It does not mean that the evaluation on which the judgment was based violated the above criteria" .

[comment] And here's the curious thing, The court agreed with all the legal premises of the patentee's assessment of innovation, It was decided that it had lost. It's worth noting, The Spanish Supreme Court currently uses international standards to determine the innovation of patents, To some extent, it alleviates the complexity of this problem.

compile: Liu Dan, The source of Aisabri Legal Counsel: Esabaril (ELZABURU)