Key takeaways
Determining the scope of protection based on the patent claim
The patent claim is always to be interpreted from the point of view of a person skilled in the art.
The skilled person takes into account the purpose of every patent claim to provide them with a technical teaching which, when reworked, leads to the intended success of the invention.
Assessment of validity of a patent-in-suit in preliminary injunction proceedings
The court must be convinced of the validity of a patent with a sufficient degree of certainty. Such “sufficient certainty” is lacking if the court considers it to be more likely than not that the patent at issue is not valid.
The court has to form its own view on the validity of the patent-in-suit. In proceedings for preliminary measures, however, the court cannot base its decision solely on its own view of the validity of the patent-in-suit if an opposition against the patent is pending at the EPO. In this situation, the UPC also has to consider the likelihood that the opposition division of the EPO will revoke the patent. For if the UPC regards a patent as valid, this decision would be overruled by an invalidity decision in the EPO opposition proceedings.
Division Hamburg – Local Division
UPC number
UPC_CFI_124/2024
Type of proceedings
Preliminary injunction
Parties
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Boston – US (Applicant),
Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company, Dublin, Ireland (Defendant 1),
Amgen N.V., Machelen, Belgium (Defendant 2),
Amgen GmbH Munich, Germany (Defendant 3),
Amgen GmbH, Vienna, Austria (Defendant 4),
Amgen AB, Solna, Sweden (Defendant 5),
Amgen S.A.S., Boulogne-Billancourt, France (Defendant 6),
Amgen s.r.l., Milan, Italy (Defendant 7),
Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda., Lisboa, Portugal (Defendant 8),
Amgen Zdravila D.O.O., Ljubljana, Slowenia (Defendant 9)
Patent(s)
EP 3 167 888 B1
Jurisdictions
Patent with unitary effect
Body of legislation / Rules
Art, 62 (2) UPCA; Rule 209.2 RoP;
Art. 62 (4) UPCA; Rule 211.2 RoP
