On April 7, 2010, the Dutch Court of The Hague gave a provisional judgment in the patent case between Mundipharma and Sandoz.
On April 7, 2010, the Dutch Court of The Hague gave a provisional judgment in the patent case between Mundipharma and Sandoz in which it made some interesting considerations about the ‘undisclosed disclaimer’: when a disclaimer must be seen as ‘undisclosed’ and whether there is an undisclosed disclaimer in this instance.
The conflict regards a Mundipharma painkiller containing a controlled release formulation, for which it owns the Dutch part of European Patent 0722730 (EP 730). The original application is international patent WO 93/10765 (WO 765). In its counterclaim, Sandoz states that the disclaimer in EP 730 is undisclosed in WO 765 and considers EP 370 invalid.
EP 730 concerns a formulation for a regulated release of oxycodon or an oxycodon salt, which is established by the use of a controlled release matrix. In an opposition against EP 370, the patent was altered but maintained. This decision was appealed by Mundipharma and the opposing party, Sandoz.
To continue reading, you need a subscription to WIPR. Start a subscription to WIPR for £455.
In-house feature articles, the archive and expert comment require a paid subscription. Subscribe now.
Want to give it a try? We are offering a two week free trial to the WIPR website – register and select “Free Trial” to begin access to the full WIPR archive and read the latest news, features and expert comment. Begin your free trial here.
Is your 2 week free trial about to end? Upgrade to a 12 month subscription for £455 now.
If you have already subscribed please login.
If you have any technical issues please email James Lynn on email@example.com.
Netherlands, judgement, Mundipharma, Sandoz, painkiller, undisclosed disclaimer