Dutch Supreme Court hands down landmark decision on infringement of second medical use patents

by Hogan Lovells
Contact

Hogan Lovells

On 3 November 2017, the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) handed down a landmark decision on the infringement of second medical use patents in the Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (“MSD”) v. Teva Pharma B.V. and Pharmachemie B.V. (“Teva”) case relating to MSD’s Swiss type second medical use patent protecting a combination therapy of ribavirin and interferon alpha for a specific group of hepatitis c patients.

The Supreme Court held that a manufacturer or seller of a generic product directly and indirectly infringes a Swiss type second medical use claim if it is reasonably foreseeable that the generic product will be used intentionally for the patented use. The Supreme Court further held that second medical use claims relating to a ‘new’ patient subgroup convey the same protection as second medical claims relating to a ‘new’ indication. The Supreme Court also held that a reasonable protection for the patentee justifies that indirect infringement of Swiss type claims is possible in the same way as an EPC 2000 claim, as there is no real difference between the two. One can at the same time directly and indirectly infringe a Swiss type claim, according to the Supreme Court.

Background

MSD is the owner of EP 0 956 861 (“EP 861”). EP 861 protects a combination therapy of ribavirin and interferon alpha for a specific group of hepatitis c patients. The claims of EP 861 are drafted in Swiss type format.

Teva had introduced a generic ribavirin product on the Dutch market. The product was accompanied with a skinny label, in which the indication according to the combination therapy of EP 861 had been carved out. There was no disagreement between the parties that there was a substantial market for both a ribavirin therapy according to EP 861 and for a ribavirin therapy that was not protected by EP 861 (or by any other patent).

On 11 December 2009, MSD instituted proceedings against Teva seeking, amongst other things, a permanent injunction against Teva on the basis of EP 861. Teva filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration of non-infringement. Teva also filed a conditional counterclaim seeking the revocation of EP 861. That claim was only filed in case Teva was held to infringe EP 861.

On 10 November 2010, the District Court of The Hague denied the claims of MSD and granted the declaration of non-infringement. On 14 July 2015, the Court of Appeal of The Hague confirmed the first instance decision by making an abstract, categorical distinction between second medical use patents relating to a product for the treatment of a ‘new’ indication and second medical use patents relating to a ‘new’ patient subpopulation. The District Court and the Court of Appeal did not have to deal with validity, as they both held that Teva did not infringe EP 861. MSD lodged an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal test

Direct infringement

The Supreme Court held that there is no room for an abstract, categorical distinction between second medical use patents relating to a product for the treatment of a ‘new’ indication and second medical use patents relating to a ‘new’ patient subpopulation under the legal framework of the European Patent Convention.

The Supreme Court held that a manufacturer or seller of a generic product directly infringes a Swiss type second medical use claim if it is reasonably foreseeable that the generic product will be used intentionally for the patented use.

This requirement is satisfied, according to the Supreme Court, if the skilled person will assume that the product is intended or suitable (or also intended or suitable) for the patented treatment on the basis of the SmPC, PIL or other circumstances of the case. If this is the case, the manufacturer or seller will have to take all effective measures that can reasonably be requested to prevent that the product will be provided for the patented second medical use.

The Supreme Court held that in the present case it generally cannot be considered sufficient to merely carve out the patented second medical use in the SmPC or PIL to escape direct infringement. The Supreme Court held that for finding direct infringement of Swiss type second medical use claims it is sufficient that:

a. the skilled person would assume that the product is intended or suitable (or also intended or suitable) for the patented use;

b. the manufacturer or seller reasonably foresees that the product will intentionally be used for the patented second medical use; and

c. the manufacturer or seller fails to take all effective measures that can reasonably be requested to prevent the product from being used for the patented second medical use.

Indirect infringement

The Supreme Court also held that a reasonable protection for the patentee justifies that Swiss type claims can also be indirectly infringed (in the same way as an EPC 2000 claim).

The Supreme Court held that the patented use protected by Swiss type claims constitutes a ‘means relating to an essential element of the invention’ which is a requirement for finding indirect infringement pursuant to Article 73 Dutch Patent Act. Accordingly, the supplier of a generic product indirectly infringes a Swiss type claim in the event that it is known or reasonably foreseeable that the generic product is suitable and intended for the patented second medical use. This is a clear deviation from an earlier decision of the District Court in The Hague that an indirect infringement of a Swiss type claim would not be possible.

The Supreme Court held that finding direct infringement does not preclude the Court from also finding indirect infringement. Swiss type claims can be infringed both direct and indirectly all at once. In an obiter dictum the Supreme Court provided guidance on its previous case law on indirect infringement. The Supreme Court held that not only elements of a claim or elements of the characterizing part of a claim can constitute ‘means relating to an essential element of an invention’. Instead, the assessment of a ‘means relating to an essential element of the invention’ requires construction of the patent and is closely linked to the assessment of facts of a case. By doing so, the Supreme Court overturned its own ruling in Sara Lee v Integro in which it said that a ‘means relating to an essential element of the invention’ is the element which distinguishes the patent from the prior art. The Supreme Court noted that the specific wording in the Sara Lee v Integro decision should be interpreted within the context of the arguments between the parties.

Comment

The decision handed down by the Dutch Supreme Court in the MSD v Teva (ribavirin) case is a landmark decision in Dutch patent law. It provides very helpful guidance on the infringement of Swiss type claims. The decision makes clear that inventions protected by patents with Swiss type claims are entitled to a fair protection, just like any other patent.


MSD is represented by Bert Oosting and Klaas Bisschop of Hogan Lovells. Tobias Cohen Jehoram and Vivian Rörsch of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek also represented MSD for the Supreme Court proceedings.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Hogan Lovells | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Hogan Lovells
Contact
more
less

Hogan Lovells on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.