Against Philip Morris (Philip Morris) Sue British American Tobacco (BAT) A case, The British High Court has just delivered its latest ruling, The withdrawal of a technology owned by British American Tobacco that involves heating but not burning cigarettes. merely, The court also rejected Philip Morris's claim for lack of commercial merit "Wrigley statement (Arrow declaration) " . The claim was made by generic drugmaker Wrigley (Arrow Generics) Sue Merck (Merck) A case.

Before this, As a competitor to British American Tobacco, Philip Morris, from the United States, is hoping to Sue for itILUMAClearing the way for the launch of a brand of heated but not burned cigarettes. finally, After the trial of the case, Britain's High Court ruled that British American Tobacco ownedEP3367830Patent No. 1 is obvious compared to prior art, And is therefore invalid. meanwhile, The court also rejected BAT's amendments to the patent claims in question, The reason is that the revised claims are still obvious. British American Tobacco subsequently filed a counterclaim for infringement, But the request was also rejected by the presiding judge, Richard．Haken (Richard Hacon) Rejection of.

merely, The court also rejected a lawsuit filed by Philip Morris, Target and controlEP3367830Patent No. 1 belongs to multiple patent applications of the same family of patents "Wrigley statement" . These patent applications are currently at the European Patent Office (EPO) It's pending. In fact, The dispute between the two sides over this heating but not burning technology has been going on for years, Among them, the newly announced heating but not burning technology realizes induction heating function, It can be heated from the inside of the product. in the United Kingdom, Philip Morris in2023years9Launched in OctoberILUMAThis product.

Philip Morris filed an annulment suit

The firstEP3367830The priority date of Patent No2015years8month30day, Involve a kind of "Articles for use with equipment for heating aspirable materials" . 2021years, Philip Morris has been the NoEP3367830Patent No. And another patent NoEP3344080The patent filed a lawsuit against British American Tobacco, The reason is that both patents are obvious compared to prior art. however, in2022annual3month, British American Tobacco agreed to withdraw itEP3344080Patent No, That means the only point of contention between the two sides remainsEP3367830No. 1 patent.

In addition, Bat has also filed a countersuit against Philip Morris, Think the latter sellsILUMAThe product constitutes infringement (Actually these products are in2023years9It entered the market in October) . After trial, The court sided with the plaintiff, That is, the patent in question is obvious in comparison to prior art and is therefore invalid, andEP3367830Patent No. 1 is inherently uncreative. therefrom, The court rejected British American Tobacco's infringement counterclaim.

The outcome of the case, A spokesman for Philip Morris told reporters: "We are very grateful that the court was able to confirm that British American Tobacco's patent was invalid, meanwhileILUMAThere is no infringement, This protects the significant resources that Philip Morris has invested in the continuous improvement of our industry. As a pioneer in the smoke-free industry, Our investment to date has exceeded105Hundreds of millions of dollars, The aim is to develop innovative, science-backed smoke-free products for adult smokers who have not quit. "

"Wrigley statement" Didn't work

As mentioned above, While making an invalid request, Philip Morris is also targeting this heating but not burning system for several products inEPOpending, EP3367830A patent application of the same family of patents was filed "Wrigley statement" . The plaintiff's argument is this, According to the corresponding priority date, Product descriptions in these applications (Relates to induction heating technology in consumables that heats but does not burn) Be obvious.

however, The court rejected the argument, The reason was put forward by Philip Morris "Wrigley statement" The business interests involved are not clear. The judge held that, On the basis of "Wrigley statement" The precondition for an injunction is to be clear what is the purpose of doing it. In fact, In the English courts "Wrigley statement" The situation is relatively rare. In fact, Following the2020Mexican chemical Group (Mexichem) Sue Honeywell (Honeywell) After the refrigeration system case was closed, The case is only the second non-drug lawsuit in which such a claim has emerged.

More information

In this year's4month, British American Tobacco has filed to revoke two of Philip Morris's patents on the grounds that they are obvious compared to prior art (Number asEP3266323andEP3741225) Request of. The court was only concernedEP3266323No patent is obvious to the argument that was examined, And Philip Morris has acknowledged that, If the court ultimately decidesEP3266323Claims of Patent No1Invalid because of obviousness, In that wayEP3741225Patent No. 1 should also be invalid.

merely, The British High Court eventually confirmed the validity of both patents. British American Tobacco was immediately involved in thisEP3266323The patent ruling was appealed, The case may be2024years3The trial was officially held in October. At present, Relate toEP3266323Parallel proceedings are under way in Germany, Poland, Czech Republic and Romania, Relate toEP3741225The appeal process for the patent is also under way. besides, 2022The end of the year, The Court of Appeal in London has confirmed the cancellation of a deal owned by Philip Morris4Pieces of patent. (Be compiled fromwww. juve-patent. com)

TRANSLATORS: Liu Peng　proofread: Wang Dan



　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, 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 us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.