Overview
Patent and trademark issues affecting pharmaceutical laboratories, biotechs, food supplements and dietary products professionals, cosmetics companies and medical devices manufacturers is continually evolving across France and the EU. We are regularly monitoring key cases and news, to provide insights as to how this impacts business within your sector.
In Depth
Highlights in this Issue
RUSSIA RESPONDS TO WESTERN SANCTIONS WITH PATENT RETALIATION
On March 6, 2022, the Russian government retaliated against the West’s imposition of sanctions by issuing a decree permitting patented innovations to be used without authorization or payment of consideration if the patent holder is from a “non-allied” country that ordered sanctions. READ MORE
SUPPLEMENTARY PROTECTION CERTIFICATE (SPC) – SUBSTANCE IDENTIFIED AS AN EXCIPIENT
CA Paris, January 18, 2022, Société Halozyme Inc. v. INPI (docket no. 20/17731)
The Paris Court of Appeal upheld a French Intellectual Property Institute (INPI) decision via which INPI denied a request for a supplementary protection certificate because the claimed combination of substances cannot be deemed to produce, within the meaning of the European regulation, one of the substances that was clearly identified as an excipient rather than an active ingredient. READ MORE
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION – DATE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTS TO RUN – PRACTICAL APPROACH
The Paris Court of Appeal overruled the finding in a trial preparation judge’s order that some of the requests for payment of additional compensation for inventions developed by a former company employee were not time barred, holding that the judge should have taken into consideration the positions she held, tasks she performed, and payments she received in consideration for her inventions. READ MORE.
REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS – NO GENUINE USE – NO PROPER REASONS FOR NON-USE
General Court of the EU, January 12, 2022, case no. T-160/21
The General Court of the European Union required proof of genuine use of the trademark for each product targeted by an application for revocation because the targeted products “form sufficiently autonomous categories.” It also held that the mere existence of a regulation is not a proper reason for non-use. READ MORE
OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS — SIMILARITY OF THE GOODS AND SERVICE – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – NO EVIDENCE OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE
General Court of the EU, March 2, 2022, case no. T149/21
TRADEMARK VALIDITY – BAD FAITH FILING – REPEAT APPLICATION
EUIPO, Fourth Board of Appeal, March 28, 2022, case no. R 1766/2021-4