echemi logo
Product
  • Product
  • Supplier
  • Inquiry
    Home > Active Ingredient News > Drugs Articles > Beijing Intellectual property court adjudicates the administrative dispute over the invalidity of the patent right of Novartis' invention for medical purposes

    Beijing Intellectual property court adjudicates the administrative dispute over the invalidity of the patent right of Novartis' invention for medical purposes

    • Last Update: 2017-01-12
    • Source: Internet
    • Author: User
    Search more information of high quality chemicals, good prices and reliable suppliers, visit www.echemi.com
    Source: intellectual property Beijing January 12, 2017 Recently, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court concluded a case in which the plaintiff Novartis Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Novartis) sued the defendant, the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter referred to as the Patent Reexamination Board), and the third party, Jiangsu Haosen Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Haosen company), to issue an administrative dispute over the invalidation of patent rights This case has attracted a high degree of social attention because it involves the creative judgment of special pharmaceutical patent in the field of chemistry, and the sued decision was selected into the top ten invalid cases of Patent Reexamination Board in 2015 This case involves the invention patent of "treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumor" Novartis is one of the joint patentees The innovation of the patent lies in the discovery that imatinib mesylate can be used for the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumor This patent claim is written in a very special way, also known as "Swiss type claim", which is a special provision under the basic principle that China's patent law does not grant patent rights for the treatment of diseases It aims to balance the interests of the public and the obligee by providing necessary protection space and institutional incentives for invention and creation for medical purposes In response to the request of Haosen company for invalidation, the Patent Reexamination Board made the sued decision, and determined that the patent right does not possess creativity, so it declared all the patent rights involved invalid Novartis Co., Ltd objected to the sued decision and appealed to Beijing Intellectual Property Court for revoking the sued decision and ordering the Patent Reexamination Board to make a new examination decision After Beijing Intellectual Property Court accepted the case, according to the requirements of specialized trial of technical cases, two judges of technical team and chief trial judge Zhang Xiaojin formed a collegial panel The technical investigation office also appointed technical investigators with medical technical background to provide technical review opinions   The collegial panel held several collegial discussions before and after the court, fully understood the technical background knowledge involved in this case, searched several cases in effect, and conducted in-depth discussion on the procedural and substantive issues in dispute between the two sides It was believed that for the second patent for medical use (i.e Swiss type claim), it not only responded to the in vitro cell and animal model of the disease Effective, it should also be able to effectively treat human patients, but this does not mean that absolute success can be achieved in clinical trials, just so that those skilled in the art have reasonable expectations on the success of treating human patients with the drug In addition, in view of the complexity of research and development of tumor drugs, those skilled in the art often pay great attention to some positive information and make beneficial attempts accordingly Therefore, even if the prior art does not explicitly disclose specific experimental types and experimental data, combined with the technical level of those skilled in the art and the description of the prior art, if they can follow the prior art When the disclosed information generates the motivation to use a specific compound for treating patients with such diseases and has reasonable expectation for the success of the treatment result, it can be concluded that the prior art has disclosed the technical scheme of the invention Accordingly, the collegial panel finally found that the invalidation examination procedure of the Patent Reexamination Board was legal, and the judgment conclusion that claim 1 of the patent possesses no inventiveness is correct, so it made a judgment of rejecting the plaintiff's claim At the same time, the judgment also makes a detailed analysis of the identification standard of invalid examination evidence, the principle of creative judgment of pharmaceutical use patent and other issues, and provides a reference for the handling of similar cases in the future Beijing intellectual property court convenient service Litigation Service 010-89082000; 010-12368 supervision report 010-12368 online supervision 1 Beijing city high court staff violation discipline Reporting Center website http://jubao.court.gov.cn/bej; 2 to "know Beijing" WeChat official account message, stated "name + ID card + telephone number" +Reflect the problem (if reflect the problem of the case, please indicate the case number)
    This article is an English version of an article which is originally in the Chinese language on echemi.com and is provided for information purposes only. This website makes no representation or warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness ownership or reliability of the article or any translations thereof. If you have any concerns or complaints relating to the article, please send an email, providing a detailed description of the concern or complaint, to service@echemi.com. A staff member will contact you within 5 working days. Once verified, infringing content will be removed immediately.

    Contact Us

    The source of this page with content of products and services is from Internet, which doesn't represent ECHEMI's opinion. If you have any queries, please write to service@echemi.com. It will be replied within 5 days.

    Moreover, if you find any instances of plagiarism from the page, please send email to service@echemi.com with relevant evidence.