Posted by: Yen Thieu in Worldwide patent, Vietnam, prosecution, Pharmaceuticals, PCT national stage, Patents, Patent Prosecution, Patent filing, patent, novelty, law, intellectual property, examination, EPO, Drug patents, claims on
May 13, 2009
Patentability of medical use claims in Vietnam has been debated for long time. At certain points of time, a number of Vietnamese patents were granted with medical use claims (first use or second use) following the practice at EPO. However, with the advent of the Code of Intellectual Property 2005, which came into force on July 1, 2006, the question again became hotly arguing.
In applying the Code of Intellectual Property 2005, medical use claims, just like any other use claims, are rejected in Vietnam for failure to be either products or processes, and hence subject to exclusion from patent protection in the country. Patent applicants, especially those in pharmaceutical industries, and their patent agents choose to either: (1) convert the second medical use claims (Swiss type, as named
The extension of life of patents in Mexico
The Mexican Constitution states that the exclusivity rights provided therein for inventors are "temporary privileges".
Without entering into the discussion about the language used in the Constitution, it is clear that one of the characteristics of the exclusivity rights on inventions is the temporality.
Temporality may vary according to each specific intellectual property right. For example, the term of a registered utility model is only 10 years counted from the filing date, while the term of a patent is, as a general rule, 20 years counted from the filing date.
In this post I will briefly discuss the extension patents, and specifically the only case of patents extension currently allowed by Mexican law, although probably without having that
Ranbaxy Laboratories, an India based Drug Company and Pfizer have settled a court dispute over Lipitor, cholesterol lowering drug. The dispute started in 2003 regarding a generic version of the drug that was marketed by Ranbaxy.
Pfizer also sue Ranbaxy over patents expiring in 2016 regarding the active ingredient in Lipidor.
The Settlement allows Ranbaxy to market the generic version in 2011, keeping copies of the cholesterol pill of the U.S market for an extra 20 months thus protecting 12 billion in sales to Pfizer. The aforementioned settlement also allows Ranbaxy to sell the generic drug on various dates in seven other countries including Canada, Australia and Germany.
Pfizer and Ranbaxy also agreed that Ranbaxy will stop contesting the validity of Pfizer patents in several specified
Posted by: Ophir Tal in US, Legistlation, Drug patents on
Mar 16, 2008
Exclusion payments are paid by a patent holder to an infringer of the patent for not challenging the validity of the infringed patent, or for not competing with the patented product.
AARP, Consumer Federation of America, Prescription Access Litigation and Public Patent Foundation ask the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to not allow exclusion payments, arguing that they cause a delayed introduction of generic drugs to the market, thus harming the public. The Appellants claim exclusion payments violate the antitrust laws.
The appeal was submitted as an Amicus curiae brief, being an independent professional point of view in the case of In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation.
<
.jpg)
.jpg)
