Eric Enderlin
3 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
3 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Alexion Pharmaceuticals' appeal against the dismissal of its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis concerning European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1 for a C5-binding antibody (eculizumab) used to treat paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. The court held that the patent's claim 2 could not be corrected by interpretation to remove 22 extra amino acids at the N-terminus of SEQ ID NO:4, as the existence of the error and the precise correction were not sufficiently certain to the person skilled in the art. Consequently, the court found it more likely than not that claim 2 was insufficiently disclosed under Art. 83 EPC, and ordered Alexion to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company, Amgen N.V., Amgen GmbH, Amgen AB, Amgen S.A.S., Amgen s.r.l., Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda., Amgen Zdravila D.O.O.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the proprietor of European Patent 3 167 888 B1 relating to the antibody eculizumab for treating paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, sought provisional measures against Amgen, which markets BEKEMV®, a biosimilar of Soliris®. The Court of First Instance (Hamburg Local Division) dismissed Alexion's application, and Alexion appealed. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that the patent's SEQ ID NO:4 sequence must be interpreted as including 22 extra amino acids at the N-terminus, and that Alexion had failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the skilled person would correct this as an error, rendering the patent claim more likely than not insufficiently disclosed under Art. 83 EPC.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 794 928 B1, owned by President and Fellows of Harvard College, brought by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Court of First Instance. The Claimant sought revocation of the patent, while the Defendant defended its validity. The Court examined its international jurisdiction of its own motion, declined to stay proceedings despite a parallel German revocation action in which the German Federal Patent Court had already revoked the German national part of the patent, and assessed novelty and inventive step under Article 54(1) EPC. The Court also refused permission for a subsequent auxiliary request to amend under Rule 50.2 RoP in conjunction with Rule 30.2 RoP, holding that it could and should have been filed earlier under the front-loaded system.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.