UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: Mar 19, 2024

UPC_CFI_124/2024

TREATMENT OF PAROXYSMAL NOCTURNAL HEMOGLOBINURIA PATIENTS BY AN INHIBITOR OF COMPLEMENT

Provisional measuresProvisional MeasuresHamburg LDProvisional measuresCase Closed
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Sufficient certainty of patent validity is required before granting provisional measures, assessed in light of likely EPO outcome

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 62(4) UPCA; R. 211.2 RoP

    Note: 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.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Preliminary injunction against Amgen entities based on EP 3 167 888 B1

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62(4) UPCA; R. 211.2 RoP

    Reason: 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.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Provisional measures require sufficient certainty of patent validity, not merely the court's own viewCourt must consider the likelihood of EPO opposition/TBA outcome when assessing validityPatent claims interpreted from the skilled person's perspective, considering purposeValidity doubt from consistent adverse TBA history defeats a PI application

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

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.