Abstract
Lundbeck’s patents protecting their blockbuster Cipralex® have been subject to invalidation actions around the globe for already many years. Cipralex® is an antidepressant drug which contains as the active substance escitalopram, the (S)-enantiomer of the racemic mixture citalopram marketed amongst others as Cipramil®. Outside Europe, these actions have mainly been finalised. However, patent litigation is still continuing in Europe.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.CAFC, Forest Laboratories, Inc. and Lundbeck A/S vs. Ivax Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Cipla, Ltd., 2007-1059, 5 September 2007 .
2.Lundbeck Canada Inc. vs. The Ministry of Health, Genpharm ULC and Apotex, Inc., T-372-07, T-991-07, T-1395-07, 25 February 2009 .
3.Lundbeck Canada Inc. vs. Apotex Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC (formerly Genpharm ULC) and Cobalt Pharmaceticals Inc., A-129-09, A-135-09, A-139-09, 25 November 2010 .
4.Alphapharm Pty Ltd. vs. Lundbeck A/S 2008 FCA 559, 24 April 2008 .
5.www.eplawpatentblog.com/eplaw/escitalopram (accessed 8 March 2012) .
7.The term “stereoselective” means that a given starting material yields one enantiomer or diastereomer in larger amount than the other. The term “stereospecific” means that the given starting material yields this enantiomer or diastereomer exclusively; Klumpp GW. Reactivity in organic chemistry J. Wiley & Sons, 1982, p.16 .
8.Kitchin J., Generics (UK) vs. H Lundbeck A/S, Chancery Division, High Court of Justice, [2007] RPC 32, 4 May 2007 .
9.Court of Appeal, H. Lundbeck A/S vs. Generics (UK), [2008] EWCA Civ. 311, 10 April 2008 .
10.House of Lords, Generics (UK) vs. H. Lundbeck A/S, 2009 UKHL 12, 25 February 2009 .
11.German Federal Patent Court, 3 Ni 9/05 (EU), Neolab Ltd vs. H. Lundbeck A/S, 24 April 2007 .
12.Dutch Patents Court, 312468/HA ZA 08-1827 of April 8, 2009; according to T 1046/97, an enantiomer of compound X and a racemate of compound X must be regarded as different compounds so that the enantiomer is novel over the racemate .
13.BGH, X ZR 98/07, Olanzapine, 16 December 2008 .
14.BGH, Xa ZR130-07, 12 November 2009 .
15.Dutch Court of Appeal, case numbers 200.444.332/01, 200.081.980/01 and 200.081.996/01, 24 January 2012; the hearing was held on 11 February 2011 .
16.The problem-solution approach adapted by the European Patent Office has similarities with the approach taken by the USPTO (Graham vs. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966)) and the “Windsurfing/Pozzoli” approach known from the UK .
17.Based on inter alia C-392/97, C-258/99, C-630/10 and C-322/10 of the ECJ (currently CJEU) .
18.Belgian Court of Commerce, Lundbeck vs. Ratiopharm (Teva) and Tiefenbacher, 3 October 2011 .
19.C-431/04 and C-202/05 of the ECJ (currently CJEU) .
20.Belgian Court of Appeal, A.R. no. 2011/AR/2821, 14 February 2012 .
21.http://thespcblog.blogspot.com (accessed 8 March 2012) .
22.French Court of Appeal, case 10-25495, SPC No 02C0020 directed to a mixture of Benoxacor and (S)-metolachlor31 January 2012 .
23.http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/pharmaceuticals/inquiry/index.html (accessed 8 March 2012) .
24.http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legislative-initiatives/epla.html (accessed 8 March 2012) .