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.
The rest of this article is locked for subscribers only. Please login to continue reading.
If you don't have a login, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content. Please use this link and follow the steps.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription to us that we can add you to for FREE, please email Atif Choudhury at email@example.com
Netherlands, judgement, Mundipharma, Sandoz, painkiller, undisclosed disclaimer