From AmericaInsuletThe company is in contact with Shanghai Changyu Technology Co. , LTD (Medtrum) The resulting dispute was again won. The Paris Court of Justice ruledInsuletThe patent relates to an insulin delivery system for diabetic patients, And was infringed by competitors. merely, What's unique about this decision is that the court based it onMedtrumIn the clinical trial phase of the use of infringing products to make judgments.

The Paris Court of Justice in a case involving NoEP1874390In the case of patent NoInsuletCarry the case, And point outMedtrumtheA6andA7+ TouchCareThe device infringes on this valid patent.

merely, This is quite different from the approach taken by other French courts, The presiding judge in this case thinks soMedtrumwhereuponA7+ TouchCareClinical trials conducted on the device constitute infringement. In addition, MedtrumThe corresponding reimbursement documents were also formulated based on the above clinical trials (This includes the price applicable to each product) .

Although in patent litigation, The Paris court has always held that imports and online sales constitute infringement. however, In this case, InsuletThe victory comes even before the infringing device has reached the market. Generally in this case, The court will issue an infringement ruling only after the product is on the market.

On the marketInsuletandMedtrum

Both companies make devices that automatically distribute insulin to people with diabetes. With the growth of population, And more and more people are being diagnosed with diabetes, These devices are increasingly sought after in the market.

InsuletIs a medical device manufacturer based in the United States, Mainly carry out the production of insulin pump. On the other hand, MedtrumThey focus on the management of diabetes. Such as, The company makes medical devices to help people control diseases, And will work to create tools to support healthcare professionals. In addition, The company is also involved in research related to the development of an artificial pancreas.

Parallel proceedings are under way in Germany. 2020years8month, The Dusseldorf Regional Court ruledMedtrumviolatedEP1874390Patent No. MedtrumThere was no appeal. merely, The federal court will be here2024years3Trial of the corresponding invalid litigation cases.

The proceedings are revealed

InsuletSaid in the complaint, competitorMedtrumtheA6andA7+The equipment infringesEP1874390Patent No. MedtrumAbout the validity of the previous seizure and "Potentially abusive nature of the proceedings" Raised an objection. therewith, InsuletIt was defended on grounds of unfair competition and harm caused.

For the above reasons, 2023years10month, The Paris Court of Justice ruledInsuletCarry the case. The court declared the previous seizure lawful, And dismissedMedtrumIn order to "Abuse of legal process and arbitrary seizure of counterfeit goods" A claim for damages. however, The court also rejected itInsuletTo be destroyed in FranceA6andA7+ TouchCareDevice request.

That's what this case is really aboutMedtrumClinical trials were carried out using its infringing devices. The company usedA7+ TouchCareThe equipment was tested, Combine its products withInsulets competing productOmnipodThe equipment is compared. The latter is the first tubeless insulin delivery system on the market.

Preliminary injunction

Insuletin2020It was first mentioned in FranceEP1874390Patent case No, Request the seizure of his home in FranceMedtrumagency. therewith, He filed an infringement suit against the patent.

The Paris Court of Justice is2021years3moon-orderMedtrumtheA6andA7+ TouchCareA preliminary injunction was issued on the product. InsuletNo requirementMedtrumStop clinical trial, To avoid disruption of medical services provided to patients.

2023years5month, The decision of the Paris Court of Appeal subsequently upheld the preliminary injunction issued by the first instance judgment. therefore, MedtrumIt's never been used in clinical trialsA6andA7+Product commercialization, Instead, they developed newer productsNano A8edition.

The Supreme Court case is pending, This is despite the fact that the preliminary injunction expired at the beginning of the first instance merits hearing.

2023years7month, The Paris Court of Justice ordered the subsidiary in parallel proceedingsMedtrum GmbHandMedtrum B. V. Recall all products sold in FranceNano TouchCareModel number. The decision was based on the alleged assault by the defendantInsuletThe firstEP2438957No. 1 patent made.

And in the same period, The Dusseldorf High Regional Court also announcedA7+The product infringesEP2438957Patent No. (Be compiled fromwww. juve-patent. com)

TRANSLATORS: Liu Peng　proofread: Wu Xian



　　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.