UPC_CFI_124/2024

TREATMENT OF PAROXYSMAL NOCTURNAL HEMOGLOBINURIA PATIENTS BY AN INHIBITOR OF COMPLEMENT

Einstweilige MaßnahmenEinstweilige MaßnahmenHamburg LDProvisional measuresCase Closed

Übersicht Entscheidungen Begründung Zitate Dokumente Zeitverlauf

Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Alexion Pharmaceuticals applied for a preliminary injunction at the Hamburg Local Division against nine Amgen entities across multiple European countries regarding EP 3 167 888 B1 (eculizumab/paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria). Identical reasoning to UPC_CFI_123/2024: the court found infringement could be established but denied the measure because the TBA's consistent rejection of SEQ ID NO:4 correction attempts created insufficient certainty of patent validity; value of dispute was EUR 100,000,000.

Angenommene Argumente

Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

Sufficient certainty of patent validity is required before granting provisional measures, assessed in light of likely EPO outcome
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62(4) UPCA; R. 211.2 RoP
Hinweis: Same legal reasoning as UPC_CFI_123/2024: the Hamburg court declined the PI because TBA history created serious doubt about EP 3 167 888 B1's validity.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente

Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

Preliminary injunction against Amgen entities based on EP 3 167 888 B1
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62(4) UPCA; R. 211.2 RoP
Begründung: Although infringement could be established, the court lacked sufficient certainty of patent validity given the TBA's consistent rejection of all attempts to correct SEQ ID NO:4 and claim sets directed to eculizumab across the EP 888 patent family.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze

In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.

Provisional measures require sufficient certainty of patent validity, not merely the court's own view Court must consider the likelihood of EPO opposition/TBA outcome when assessing validity Patent claims interpreted from the skilled person's perspective, considering purpose Validity doubt from consistent adverse TBA history defeats a PI application

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

Identical to UPC_CFI_123/2024: the court construed EP 3 167 888 claims but found it could not be sufficiently certain of validity given the TBA's repeated holdings that SEQ ID NO:4 includes the signal peptide sequence and its refusal to allow correction.