Judge Profile

Eric Enderlin

3 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.

Cases Presided Over

3 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1

patent LITIGATION · Dec 20, 2024

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001090

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.

patent LITIGATION · Dec 20, 2024

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.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001086

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.

patent LITIGATION · Oct 17, 2024

NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-001201

NanoString Technologies Europe Limited brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court seeking revocation of European Patent EP 2 794 928 B1 owned by President and Fellows of Harvard College, relating to compositions and methods for detecting analytes. The court rejected the defendant's preliminary objection on lis pendens related to a parallel German revocation action and refused permission for a subsequent application to amend the patent. The Central Division held that the main request lacked novelty over the prior art document Göransson, and that the auxiliary requests lacked inventive step, revoking the patent in its entirety.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →