patent litigation in france - véron & associés · patent litigation in france les germany 15...
Post on 14-Apr-2018
225 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 1
Paris Lyon
Patent Litigation in France
Sabine Agé
Licensing executive society Germany Königswinter 15 March 2012
Most of the decisions mentioned can be found at http://www.frenchpatentcaselaw.info/
2
Highlights
Statistics
Case law
Validity
Infringement
Injunctions
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 2
Statistics
3
Patent litigation in France in figures
350 new patents cases filed per year before the tribunal de grande instance of Paris (exclusive jurisdiction)
110 new patent cases in appeal per year (i.e. 30% of the cases are appealed)
80% infringement actions (remaining 20%: nullity, contract, employee inventions, property claims)
Complete survey on patent litigation in France 2000-2009: http://www.veron.com/publications/Colloques/Patent_litigation_France_Stats_2000-2009_Veron_&_Associes.pdf
Statistics
4
European comparison : data from Harhoff report
0
250
500
750
1000
Allemagne * France Italie Royaume-Uni Pays-Bas
* Germany : one case per claim (infringement / nullity) and one case per patent
0
250
500
750
1000
Allemagne * France Italie Royaume-Uni Pays-Bas
Harhoff (raw data)
Harhoff (rectified data)
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 3
Statistics
5 5 5 5
Validity and infringement
Statistics
6 6 6
Validity and infringement European patents
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 4
Statistics
7 7 7 7
Cour d’Appel: judgments affirmed /reversed
CA Paris
2000-2010
Statistics
9 9 9 9
Cour d’Appel: validity and infringement
CA Paris
2000-2010
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 5
Statistics
10 10 10
The damages awarded
(TGI Paris 2000-2010 – costs under Art. 700 not taken into account – advance payments included – settlement agreement included)
Date Part ies Damages (incl. adv.)
09/02/2007 ETHYPHARM v. LABORATOIRES FOURNIER 10 000 000 €
11/02/2009 L'OREAL et al. v. BOURJOIS et al. 8 200 000 €
14/01/2009 WATERS CORPORATION v. HEWLETT-PACKARD, AGILENT TECHNOLOGY DEUTSCHLAND 4 317 180 €
09/10/2009 LEGRAND, LEGRAND SNC v. ALTERNATIVE ELEC 3 301 000 €
25/06/2010 TECHNOGENIA v. MARTEC, ATELIERS JOSEPH MARY 2 735 013 €
17/03/2009 MICSYSTEMES v. FINANCIERE LIBERTEL 16 2 600 000 €
29/06/2004 Technogenia v. Martec, Ateliers Joseph Mary, BMI, Actciale 2 000 000 €
14/09/2007 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS v. MANUFACTURING ADVANCED MEDIA EUROPE 2 000 000 €
07/04/2009 INSTRUMENTATION LABORATORY SPA v. S.A.S DIAGNOSTICA STAGO 2 000 000 €
14/05/2003 DENTSPLY RESEARCH ET DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. EMS France 1 256 178 €
29/10/2008 L'AIR LIQUIDE v. YARA France 1 195 050 €
16/09/2009 HAGER SECURITY v. CEDOM, LEROY MERLIN France 1 184 806 €
09/11/2004 Schneider Electric Industries v. Wenzhou Fly-Dragon Electric 1 000 000 €
25/03/2009 NOVARTIS AG v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON VISION CARE 1 000 000 €
12/09/2007 SEB SA, SEB SAS v. DE LONGHI 989 858 €
08/03/2006 CITEC ENVIRONNEMENT v. K.A. FRANCE, SSI SCHAEFFER 693 653 €
26/03/2010 BRANDT INDUSTRIES v. Société WHIRLPOOL France 651 446 €
28/01/2009 S.A. TREVES v. S.A.S. VISTEON SYSTEMES INTERIEURS 530 000 €
10/07/2002 SEDAC-MECOBEL v. J.P. GRUHIER SA, STYLING 517 036 €
06/06/2007 ROTANOTICE v. M.Y. HEALTHCARE France 500 000 €
Statistics
11
Duration of French proceedings Novartis v. Johnson & Johnson
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 6
Statistics
12
Duration of French proceedings Agilent Technologies v. Waters
Statistics
13
French case law
Validity
Infringement
Injunctions
Most of the decisions mentioned can be found at http://www.frenchpatentcaselaw.info/
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 7
Validity
14 14
Validity
1. Dosage regime (patentability exclusion)
2. Insufficiency
3. Novelty
4. Inventive step
5. Procedure
Validity
15 15
1. Dosage regime (patentability exclusion)
Merck patent EP 0 724 444: “Use of finasteride for the preparation of a medicament adapted for oral administration for the treatment of androgenic alopecia in a person wherein the dosage amount is about 0.05 to 1.0 mg [per day]”
G 2/08 of 19/02/2010
Two separate actions for invalidity:
Actavis Group, Paris TGI, 3rd ch., 1st sect., 28/09/2010 (non patentable therapeutic method)
Teva, Paris TGI, 3rd ch., 1st sect., 9/11/2010 (insufficiency)
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 8
Validity
16 16
Actavis v. Merck (1/2)
The Tribunal acknowledges the patentability of a new therapeutic use
It refers to decision G 2/08
But it considers that a dosage regime
is a therapeutic method
and not a new therapeutic use
Actavis v. Merck, Paris TGI, 3rd ch., 1st sect., 28/09/2010
Validity
17 17
Actavis v. Merck (2/2)
Only the doctor has the right to determine the dosage regime
In France, the leaflets inform that the prescribed dosage regimes are merely indicative and that a doctor must be consulted
Actavis v. Merck, Paris TGI, 3rd ch., 1st sect., 28/09/2010
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 9
Validity
18 18
2. Insufficiency
2.1. Particle size measurement
2.2. Enantiomers
Validity
19 19
2.1. Particle size measurement (1/2)
EP 0 937 120
Claim relating to starch in a dispersed phase wherein “the average numeral particle size is from 0.1 to 0.5 m”
Paris TGI, 3rd ch., 2nd sect., 16/04/2010, Novamont v. Biotec
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 10
Validity
20 20
Particle size measurement (2/2)
“Although the patent mentions a measurement made by scanning electron microscope after starch solubilisation with hydrochloric acid (HCl)5M, this indication does not define the conditions under which these measurements must be taken.”
A book and an expert report establish that the duration of the acid attack and the temperature have an influence on the starch dissolution and that these are not mentioned
Therefore, the patent does not provide “the conditions for determining the claimed starch particles”
Paris TGI, 3rd ch., 2nd sect., 16/04/2010, Novamont v. Biotec
Validity
21 21
2.2. Enantiomers
Action for invalidity initiated by Teva against Sepracor
Sepracor’s patent EP 0 663 828 claiming the use of levocetirizine (Xyzall), one of the cetirizine (Zyrtec) enantiomers, for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma
On the same date, Sepracor filed a patent application relating to the use of dextrocetirizine, the other enantiomer for the treatment of allergic disorders
The patent in dispute (levocetirizine) is considered “speculative”
Paris TGI, 3rd ch., 1st sect., 6/10/2009, Teva v. Sepracor
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 11
Validity
22 22
Enantiomers: insufficiency
“The description must contain the pharmacologic properties and one or several therapeutic uses”
The inventor does not have to prove the result but he has to mention that this result was sought and exists
Paris TGI, 3rd ch., 1st sect., 6/10/2009, Teva v. Sepracor
Validity
23 23
3. Novelty
3.1. Purity
3.2. Enantiomer
3.3. Implicit disclosure
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 12
Validity
24 24
3.1. Purity
EP Madaus 0 520 414 relating to diacetylrhein (osteoarthritis)
Claim 14:
“Pharmaceutical preparation containing diacetylrhein having less than 20 ppm of aloe-emodin components together with conventional pharmaceutical carriers and auxiliary supports”
Held invalid for lack of novelty:
“In general, a document disclosing a chemical compound makes this product available, according to the meaning of Article 54 EPC, in all degrees of purity.”
Paris TGI, 3rd ch., 3rd sect., 31/03/2010, Negma v. Biogaran
affirmed by Paris CA, division 5, ch. 1, 30/06/2010
Validity
25 25
3.2. Enantiomer
Lundbeck patent EP 0 347 066 covering enantiomer (+) of citalopram
Novelty of the enantiomer with regard to the racemic mixture
The examples describing the racemic mixture taught neither the existence of the enantiomer nor the possibility to isolate it
Same conclusion as Bundesgerichsthof, 10/09/2009 Xa ZR 130/07
Ratiopharm v. Lundbeck, Paris TGI, 3rd ch., 4th sect., 30/09/2010
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 13
Validity
26
3.3. Implicit disclosure
“In light of the absence of any indication in the Lai/Valint I patent application of how to prepare the macromer IDS3H, Dr Vanderlaan carried out, over more than two years, a number of tests using various ingredients and experienced a number of failures before succeeding in producing a high proportion of lenses free of any material defect;
such work, contrary to the appellants’ assertions, exceeds the routine work of the skilled person;
the implementation of example 4 of the Lai/Valint I patent therefore imposes a number of ingredient combinations, some of which could undoubtedly lead to a result in accordance with claim 1 of the patent in dispute, but a great number of which do not meet this claim, so that it is unfounded to assert implicit disclosure through the obtention of an inevitable result, and consequently the allegation of destruction of novelty was rightly dismissed by the court in first instance.”
Novartis v. Johnson & Johnson, Paris Court of appeal, division 5, ch. 1, 27/10/2010
Validity
27 27
4. Inventive step:
4.1. Group of people as “skilled person”
4.2. Problem / solution approach
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 14
Validity
28
4.1. Group of people as “skilled person”
“ …definition of the skilled person as given in the judgment, specifically, a team consisting of a polymer chemist, with the objective of developing suitable materials, of a physicist responsible for determining the physical properties of the ophthalmic lenses and of an ophthalmologist specialised in contact lenses”
Novartis v. Johnson & Johnson, Paris CA, division 5, ch. 1, 27/10/2010
Validity
29 29
4.2. Problem/solution approach (1/2)
Dismissal of a nullity action brought by Sandoz against EP 0 577 303 covering a new process to manufacture gemcitabine (treatment of cancer)
Application of the could/would approach by the court of appeal of Paris
Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Paris CA, division 5, ch. 2, 13/01/2012
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 15
Validity
30 30
Problem / solution approach (2/2)
“As it results from the constant case law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, the issue is not one of knowing whether the person skilled in the art would have been able to carry out the invention by modifying the state of the art, but rather whether he would have acted in the hopes of achieving the advantages that were actually obtained considering the technical problem that was posed because the state of the art contained suggestions along this line (see: Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 6th edition 2010, page 201 I.D.5, “could-would approach” and ex post facto analysis).”
Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Paris CA, division 5, ch. 2, 13/01/2012
Procedure
31
5. Procedure
5.1. Admissibility of an action for invalidity
5.2. Limitation procedure
5.3. Impact of the EPO decisions
5.4. Impact of the foreign decisions
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 16
Procedure
32 32
5.1. Admissibility of an action for invalidity
Inadmissibility of a request for invalidity filed by a straw man:
“Omnipharm, far from proving to be a current or even simply a potential competitor to Merial, in reality acts on behalf of third companies, which do not want to appear in this dispute, and that it is a shell company hiding other companies”
“Omnipharm does not prove to be in a position to develop, manufacture or sell itself in France a product for veterinary use, in compliance with Merial’s patents in dispute, and in particular to have the required means (infrastructure, staff and installations) to develop such business”
Omnipharm v. Merial, Paris TGI, 3rd ch., 4th sect., 12/05/2011
Affirmed by Paris CA, division 5, ch. 2, 17/02/2012
Procedure
33 33
5.2. Limitation procedure
Limitation possible in France since 1st January 2009
Usually court stays the proceedings pending the decision of the EPO (stay unnecessary pending limitation before French Intellectual Property Institute (INPI), because takes approx. one month)
First decisions on validity of limited claims in 2011: in 3 cases over 4, patent as limited was upheld
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 17
Procedure
34 34
5.3. Impact of the EPO decisions
“The French courts are not bound by the decisions of the EPO which is not a court (as opposed to the European Union courts’ decisions which are binding to national courts)
so that these decisions even issued by the Enlarged Board of Appeal are merely indications of the analysis made by the EPO to grant European patents”
Actavis v. Merck Paris TGI, 3rd ch., 1st sect., 28/09/2010
Procedure
35 35
5.4. Impact of the foreign decisions
“The same is true of the decisions of the courts of the European Union Member States which contribute to the legal debate by explaining the reasoning of each national court on the point of law referred to them, but which are not binding on national case law”
Actavis v. Merck Paris TGI, 3rd ch., 1st sect., 28/09/2010
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 18
Procedure
36 36
Impact of the foreign decisions
The foreign decisions are “legal matters that can be brought to the judge’s knowledge”; ”they are part of the discussion but are subjected, like any other legal matter, to the assessment of the court to which they are submitted”;
“It is not for the French judge to comment on the decisions thus rendered, the latter being only allowed to examine not just the result thereof, but above all their reasoning, so as to be able to assess whether the legal foundations are those set out in the pleadings he was submitted and whether the facts submitted to the other courts are similar.”
Aventis and Sepracor v. Teva, Paris TGI, order in preliminary proceedings, 12 January 2010
Infringement
37 37
Infringement
1. File wrapper estoppel
2. Infringement of standard essential patents
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 19
Infringement
38 38
1. File wrapper estoppel?
Institut Pasteur holds a patent relating to “Cloned DNA sequences, hybridizable with genomic RNA of lymphadenopathy-associated virus (LAV).”
the claims were amended during the grant and opposition procedures to be differentiated from the prior art
Defendant alleged that they should be strictly interpreted or, alternatively, if broadly construed, invalid
Institut Pasteur v. Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Paris TGI, 3rd chamber, 2nd section, 28/05/ 2010
Infringement
39 39
The court held that the amended claims must be strictly interpreted to ensure legal certainty for third parties:
“It follows that the amendments made to the claims by Institut Pasteur during the examination and opposition proceedings - which must be taken into account failing which legal certainty for third parties would be violated - resulted in limiting the scope of the invention, which was voluntarily limited in order to obtain the grant then the maintenance of the patent at issue.”
Institut Pasteur v. Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Paris TGI, 3rd chamber, 2nd section, 28/05/2010
File wrapper estoppel?
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 20
Infringement
40 40
2. Infringement of standard essential patents
Order of the presiding judge of the tribunal de grande instance of Paris in the framework of the worldwide battle between Samsung and Apple
Samsung sought a preliminary injunction against Apple, arguing that Apple’s iPhones 4S contain chips infringing EP No. 1 188 269 and 1 097 516, declared essential to the UMTS standard within the framework of ETSI (European Telecommunication Standard Institute)
Apple submitted that (i) Samsung’s rights with respect to the chips contained in the telephones are exhausted, (ii) it was granted a FRAND license in accordance with article 6-1 of the ETSI IPR Policy or, at least, Samsung’s FRAND undertaking is an irrevocable offer which Samsung did not withdraw, (iii) the patents at issue are invalid, (iv) Samsung would abuse of a dominant position if an injunction were granted
Samsung v. Appel, Paris TGI (Ord. in preliminary proceedings), 8/12/2011
Infringement
41 41
Dismissal of Samsung’s claim for a preliminary injunction based on Apple’s first argument, i.e. exhaustion of Samsung’s patent rights on the chips integrated in the iPhones 4S
Decision not based on the undertaking provided by Samsung to the ETSI when declaring that the two patents asserted against Apple were essential to the UMTS standard, but the judge states:
ETSI does not check whether the patents which are declared essential are valid and indeed essential to the standard, such that these issues may be submitted to courts
ETSI IPR policy according which the granted licence shall be irrevocable and the royalty rate shall be FRAND are provided to prevent the holder of essential patents from abusing a dominant position
the preliminary injunction sought by Samsung against Apple is disproportionate
Infringement of standard essential patents
Samsung v. Appel, Paris TGI (Ord. in preliminary proceedings), 8/12/2011
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 21
Injunctions
42 42
Injunctions
1. Interim injunctions in preliminary proceedings
2. Ex parte interim injunctions
3. Injunction granted on the merits of the case
4. Enforcement at the risk of the plaintiff
Injunctions
43 43
1. Interim injunctions: legal ground
Art. L. 615-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code (as modified by the 29 October 2007 Act):
“ (…) The court, in preliminary proceedings or ex parte, may order the requested measures only if evidence, reasonably accessible to the claimant, make it likely that its rights are infringed or that such infringement is about to be committed. (…)”
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 22
Injunctions
44 44
Interim injunctions: likelihood of infringement (no)
“The judge ruling in preliminary proceedings has to
decide on the objections brought before him to
challenge the plaintiff’s claims and these objections
may relate to the validity of the patent itself; it is
then for him to assess the seriousness of the
objections, which then deprive the alleged
infringement of any obviousness.”
Aventis v. Teva, Paris TGI (Ord. in preliminary proceedings), 12/01/2010, (fexofenadine)
Injunctions
45 45
Interim injunctions: likelihood of infringement (no)
“It does not appear likely enough that Cipla’s manufacturing process infringes claim 3 of AstraZeneca’s patent EP 940.”
Paris TGI (Ord. in preliminary proceedings), 10/06/2011, AstraZeneca v. Ethypharm, Mylan (esomeprazole, gastric
antisecretory and antiulcer substance, patent related to a manufacturing processs)
“No imminent infringement of Novartis’ rights being found, the conditions of Article L. 615-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code are not met...”
Paris TGI (Ord. in preliminar proceedings), 05/04/2011, Novartis v. EG Labo (valsartan + hydrochlorotiazide, antihypertensive)
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 23
Injunctions
46 46
Interim injunctions: likelihood of infringement (conflicting decisions)
Validity of the basic patent and imminent infringement not disputed
Only the scope of the SPC (active ingredient alone or in combination with another) was disputed
Interim injunction granted Paris TGI (Ord. in preliminary proceedings), 12/02/2010, EI DuPont de Nemours v. Mylan (losartan + hydrochlorotiazide, anti-hypertensive), affirmed by the Paris CA, division 1, ch. 3, 15/03/2011
Interim injunction denied Paris TGI (Ord. in preliminary proceedings), 28/01/2011, Novartis v. Actavis (valsartan + hydrochlorotiazide, anti-hypertensive), reversed by the Paris CA, division 1, ch. 4, 16/09/2011
Injunctions
47 47
2. Ex parte interim injunctions: only in urgent matters or when existing decision on the same patent or SPC
Interim injunction granted ex parte
Paris TGI (Ord. in preliminary proceedings), 27/10/2011, Novartis v. Sanofi Aventis (losartan +
hydrochlorotiazide, anti-hypertensive)
Request for withdrawal of this order dismissed
Reasons:
Scope of SPC considered in previous cases
Expiry of the patent and expected launch of generic product very close
Paris TGI (Ord. in preliminary proceedings), 31/10/2011, Novartis v. Sanofi Aventis
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 24
Injunctions
48 48
3. Injunctions granted on the merits: stopping the provisional enforcement exceptional
A judgment granting an injunction on the merits of the case is generally provisionally enforceable “under a penalty of € X per recorded infraction after a x-day period following the service of the decision”
Provisional enforcement stopped by the president of the Cour d’Appel if it “"it may have manifestly severe consequences” for the party subjected to it (with regard to its situation, that of the party benefiting from the injunction or that of third parties)
But stopping provisional enforcement remains an exception
Paris CA, division 1, ch. 5, Laboratoires Asepta v. Millet Innovation, 15/12/2010
Paris CA, division 1, ch. 5, Novartis v. Johnson & Johnson, 6/07/2009
Injunctions
49 49
4. Enforcement of the injunction at the risk of the plaintiff
If it enforces a preliminary injunction and the patent claim on the basis of which the injunction had been granted is afterwards declared invalid on the merits, the plaintiff is liable for the harmful consequences of this injunction without needing to demonstrate a fault
Paris TGI, 3rd ch. 2nd sect., 27/01/2012, Medidom & Negma v. Biogaran
But the revocation of a patent does not force the patentee to pay back the damages he has collected from an infringer as a result of a judgment which became final before the revocation of the patent
Cour de cassation, en banc, 17/02/2012, Reginald Wehrkamp-richter v. Louis Paul Guitay, Lpg Systems
Patent Litigation in France LES Germany
15 March 2012
Sabine Agé • Véron & Associés 25
50 50
Thank you for your attention
Sabine Agé
1, rue Volney 75002 Paris Tel. +33 (0)1 47 03 62 62 Fax +33 (0)1 47 03 62 69 53, avenue Maréchal Foch 69006 Lyon Tel. +33 (0)4 72 69 39 39 Fax +33 (0)4 72 69 39 49 Sabine.age@veron.com www.veron.com
top related