UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

CC 586764/2023

10. Nov. 2023·EP3666797 · ANTIGEN BINDING PROTEINS TO PROPROTEIN CONVERTASE SUBTILISIN KEXIN TYPE 9 (PCSK9)

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent nichtig)
Verfahrensart
Widerklage auf Nichtigkeit
Kategorie
Widerklage auf Nichtigkeit
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Munich CD
Richter
Technologie
  • Chemistry
    Biotechnology · Pharmaceuticals
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
16. Juli 2024
EPA-Einspruch
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Patent nichtigMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC37% (34/91)124
Munich CDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Ulrike VoßGesperrtGesperrt
Richter András KupeczGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Casper StruveGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. (9 Verfahren)·Amgen Group (19 Verfahren)

14 Tage kostenlos testenBereits Nutzer? Anmelden
Verwandte Verfahren
Alle Verfahren zu diesem Patent

Dieser Streit umfasst 3 weitere Verfahren

UPC CFI 2221/2025·UPC CoA 529/2024·UPC CFI 14/2023

3 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent

UPC CFI 2220/2025·UPC CoA 528/2024·UPC CFI 1/2023

Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.

Weitere Verfahren: Munich CD·2023

Entscheidungen
  • 2024-07-16
    Counterclaim for revocationÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The patent EP 3 666 797 B1 was revoked in its entirety for all Contracting Member States in which revocation was requested. The Main Request and all 17 Auxiliary Requests were found to lack inventive step. The defendant (patent proprietor Amgen) was ordered to bear the claimant's legal costs, agreed at EUR 1.375 million.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
    • Claim interpretation
    • Priority (Article 87 EPC)
    • Inventive step (Article 56 EPC)
    • Arbitrary selection
    • Technical effect as indication of inventive step
Dokumente
Alle 373 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Procedural Order App_47154/20242024-10-23Nicht öffentlich
Final Order anonymised2024-07-16Nicht öffentlich
DecisionOutcome2024-07-16Nicht öffentlich
decision revocation counterclaim 14/20232024-07-16Öffentlich
decision revocation counterclaim 14/20232024-07-16Nicht öffentlich
Announcement2024-07-04Öffentlich
Recording of Oral Hearing - Placeholder2024-06-06Nicht öffentlich
Recording of Oral Hearing - Placeholder2024-06-06Nicht öffentlich
interimProcedureClosure2024-05-22Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2024-05-13Nicht öffentlich
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals brought a revocation counterclaim against Amgen's EP 3 666 797 B1 (anti-PCSK9 antibody patent) before the Central Division (Munich Section). The Central Division revoked the patent in its entirety over 17 contracting member states, finding that Amgen's Main Request and all 17 Auxiliary Requests lacked inventive step; Amgen was ordered to bear Regeneron's legal costs agreed at EUR 1.375 million, against a case value of EUR 100 million.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • EP 3 666 797 B1 (anti-PCSK9 antibody) lacks inventive step over the prior art

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC; Art. 138(1)(a) EPC; Art. 65(2) UPCA

    Hinweis: Regeneron's inventive step attack succeeded against Amgen's Main Request and all 17 Auxiliary Requests; multiple realistic starting points were identified in the prior art.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • EP 3 666 797 B1 Main Request and all 17 Auxiliary Requests are valid and inventive

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC; Art. 76 UPCA

    Begründung: All 17 auxiliary requests lacked inventive step for the same reasons as the Main Request; the Central Division applied Art. 76 UPCA (decisions on merits only on submitted grounds) and found no valid form of the patent.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
claim interpretation uses technical meaning for skilled person, not philological meaning; patent description may act as its own lexiconpriority right under Art. 87 EPC: subject-matter of claim must be derivable directly and unambiguously from the priority application by skilled person using common general knowledgeinventive step assessment starts from a realistic starting point in prior art; multiple realistic starting points are permissible and there is no requirement to identify the 'most promising' starting pointinventive step denied where skilled person would be motivated to arrive at the claimed solution and would implement it as a next step; absence of reasonable expectation of success does not follow merely from existence of alternative solutions in prior artfor denying inventive step it is sufficient that skilled person without inventive contribution would arrive at a result covered by the claimarbitrary selection from several equivalent possibilities does not contribute to inventive step

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Herangezogener Stand der Technik
Zitierte Schriften und die Rolle, die sie gespielt haben.
  • prior art starting points in the anti-PCSK9 antibody field (multiple realistic starting points identified by Central Division)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

EP 3 666 797 B1 claims antigen-binding proteins directed to PCSK9. The Central Division interpreted claim terms using their technical meaning for the skilled person in the antibody/cholesterol-lowering field, with the patent description serving as a lexicon for specialised terms. Priority validity was also assessed: the claimed subject-matter had to be derivable directly and unambiguously from the priority application using common general knowledge.