Arbitral Digest

Matter

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc. v National Institute of Industrial Property (Paris Court of Appeal RG 21/17890)

  1. 13 July 2021France

    13 July 2021France

    Decision of the Director General of the National Institute of Industrial Property dated 13 July 2021 in application 17C1045

    National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI)

    Case no.
    17C1045
    Decision summary
    The Director General of the National Institute of Industrial Property rejected Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc.'s application for a supplementary protection certificate for atezolizumab, finding that the product was not protected by base patent EP 1 210 424 under Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009.

    Supporting details

    2 participants
    Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc.
    National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI)
    National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI)

    1 year, 10 months and 13 days later · 682 days

  2. 26 May 2023France

    26 May 2023France

    Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal in RG 21/17890 dated 26 May 2023

    Paris Court of Appeal, Division 5, Chamber 2

    Case no.
    RG 21/17890
    Citation
    RG 21/17890; Portalis 35L7-V-B7F-CEPE2
    Decision summary
    The Paris Court of Appeal rejected Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc.'s appeal against the INPI Director General's refusal of supplementary protection certificate application 17C1045 for atezolizumab. The court held that atezolizumab was not specifically identifiable in the base patent EP 1 210 424 at its filing or priority date and therefore was not protected by that patent for the purposes of Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009. It also declined to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union and did not decide the Article 3(c) issue because Dana-Farber had withdrawn its parallel application 17C1055.

    Supporting details

    14 authorities · 11 participants
    Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc.
    Representative
    François Teytaud (For: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc.)
    Representative
    AARPI Teytaud - Saleh (For: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc.)
    Representative
    François Jonqueres (For: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc.)
    Representative
    Simmons & Simmons LLP (For: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc.)
    National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI)
    Representative
    Virginie Landais (For: National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI))
    Paris Court of Appeal, Division 5, Chamber 2
    Other
    Institutional administrator
    Carole Trejaut

    Authorities cited

    14
    • Regulation (EC) No 469/2009
      statute
    • French Code of Civil Procedure
      statute
    • French Intellectual Property Code
      statute
    • European Convention on Human Rights
      statute
    • Convention on the Grant of European Patents
      statute
    • Medeva
      case-law
    • C-493/12
      case-law
    • C-121/17
      case-law
    • C-650/17
      case-law
    • French Court of Cassation decisions in the [O] cases
      case-law
    • T-906/91
      case-law
    • T-431/96
      case-law
    • T-877/03
      case-law
    • EPO Guidelines 2021
      academic

Matter record

Report a correction

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc. v National Institute of Industrial Property (Paris Court of Appeal RG 21/17890) · Matter