6 month 26 day, The British Court of Appeal ruled against Israeli pharmaceutical companies Neurim, The world's leading generic drug and pharmaceutical company Mylan and Neurim Licensee of Flynn The dispute between the decision. The judge upheld the decision of the first instance, reject Neurim Aim at Mylan A request for a temporary injunction.

The ruling means that Neurim forbid Mylan An attempt to release a generic version of its insomnia drug failed. This case will have a certain impact on future patentees suing generic drug companies. In fact, The appeals court's ruling caught innovative drug companies by surprise, Because the courts have argued that paying damages for generic drugs entering the market is enough to compensate the original company. Some observers expect the ruling to encourage generics firms to bring their products to market sooner.

Neurim with Mylan Contested patent (EP144702B1) It involves a drug used to treat insomnia, It belongs to secondary medical use. Neurim Owns the patent will be 2022 years 8 Monthly maturity. Neurim Licensee of Flynn Has a melatonin based treatment for insomnia, The drug consists of "Circadin" Circulate the brand name in the market. Mylan There are plans to launch a generic version of the drug in Britain, In parallel 2019 years 12 Month received approval to sell generic drugs.

but, Mylan Plans to launch generic drugs prompted Neurim and Flynn Bring an infringement suit against it. Vice versa, Mylan File a petition to revoke the patent on the drug. Neurim Petition the court Mylan Grant a provisional injunction, And the cases between the parties concerning patent invalidity and infringement will be 2020 years 10 Monthly hearing.

2020 years 6 month 3 day, The High court heard the injunction request by video, But refuse to Mylan Grant an injunction. The court of appeal upheld the first decision. In the first instance, The court found a temporary injunction unnecessary. The court recommended that, To bring generic drugs to market Mylan The payment of damages is enough to compensate Neurim.

Presiding Judge Marcus．Smith (Marcus Smith) This unusual decision was endorsed in the judgment of first instance. He said: "I agree with the status quo in favor of granting the injunction. but, In this case, It's not a particularly important factor, Does it in any way affect my conclusion on the adequacy of damages. " Smith's ruling was based on 1975 years American Cyanamid with Ethicon Action between (So called "Balance of convenience" ) .

The judgment in this case was made for damages 4 A question, These questions must be considered before the court grants a temporary injunction. Based on this, Judge Smith accepted the first question, As sufficient grounds for denying the injunction request. The appeals court judges upheld the decision. Neurim and Flynn appeal. Neurim Also said, Even if the courts speed it up, it will cost 1－2 Annual time, It faces losses as a result. but, The appeals court judges rejected it Neurim The proposition of——The ruling will have a negative impact on the pharmaceutical industry.

2020 years 10 month, The parties will face the main trial of patent revocation and infringement. The judge pointed out, 4 A month of competition does not equal Neurim in 2 Loss suffered during the validity of the patent. The Supreme Court rejected it Neurim and Flynn Appeal against rejection of an injunction. All parties are now focused on 10 At the trial in January. European Patent Office (EPO) Intervention of 2017 years 5 month, EPO grant Neurim The first EP144702B1 Patent no.

but, Grant in the bureau Neurim post-patent, Mylan Raise an objection. Therefore, EPO Dissenting departments on 2019 years 11 The patent was revoked in January. Neurim Appeal against the decision. but, The patent also has a contract 2 The year is about to expire, This means that the opposing division cannot issue a ruling on the complaint until after the patent expires. Parallel litigation over the patent is under way in Denmark, Sweden and Austria, Although not against Mylan, But another generics firm is also involved.

(Compiled from www. juve-patent. com)

Reprinted from China Intellectual Property Network   translation: Rason group　proofread: Wang Dan

disclaimer: This website reprint articles are from the Internet, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact this website, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.