-
1.
A decision cancelling a patent does not have absolute effect within the meaning of Art. L. 613-27 of the Intellectual Property Code until it has acquired the force of res judicata.
-
2.
Where a claim concerns a subsequent therapeutic application of a substance or a composition, obtaining this therapeutic effect is a functional technical characteristic of the claim, such that, although the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure does not require this therapeutic effect to be shown clinically, the patent claim must in any event directly and without ambiguity reflect the therapeutic application claimed, so that the person skilled in the art understands, on the basis of generally accepted models, that the results reflect this therapeutic application.
Author information
Consortia
Additional information
Translation by David Wright.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Teva Santé v. Merck & Co. Inc. (now Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.) Intellectual Property Code, Arts. L. 613-27, L. 614-12; Munich Convention on the Grant of European Patents (EPC), Arts. 53(c), 54, 56, 138; Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 55. “Finasteride”. IIC 49, 714–718 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-018-0727-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-018-0727-x