In a recent global patent disputes, the Madras High Court has pronounced a ruling concerning the ongoing patent dispute in the United States involving Pfizer’s drug, VYNDAMAX (also known as TAFAMIDIS), which is used to treat a rare heart condition called transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM).
The case is in focus due to the high stakes involved, as Pfizer holds a patent for VYNDAMAX, which is a formulation of TAFAMIDIS, a drug that stabilizes transthyretin (TTR) protein in the heart, which reduces the life-threatening effects of ATTR-CM. Pfizer’s patent rights on the drug have been contested in several jurisdictions, but this ruling in the Madras High Court is particularly noteworthy, as it reflects the broader international implications of the ongoing patent conflict.
In its order, the Madras High Court emphasized the importance of protecting intellectual property, especially for life-saving drugs like VYNDAMAX in pharma sector. The court ruled that Pfizer’s patent for TAFAMIDIS must be upheld in India, despite challenges from generic manufacturers. This ruling reinforces Pfizer’s exclusive rights over the formulation, production or distribution of VYNDAMAX in the Indian market.
The Madras High Court’s decision is groundbreaking for the global pharmaceutical industry, particularly in the realm of patent enforcement. The ongoing patent dispute in the other countries like United States has sparked heated debates over access to affordable medicines versus protecting the intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical companies. VYNDAMAX is considered a breakthrough in the treatment of a condition that severely impacts the heart, and its exclusivity remains a point of contention in markets where generic alternatives are being sought.
Pfizer has expressed its satisfaction with the ruling, stating that it affirms the company’s commitment to innovation and patient care. The company further emphasized that the decision will help ensure that VYNDAMAX remains available to those who need it while protecting the intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical innovators.
Although, it is expected that this ruling will have limited direct effect on markets outside of India, but it does signify the growing importance of patent protection in the global pharmaceutical landscape. Stakeholders, including patients, healthcare providers, and competitors, are keenly awaiting further developments in this high-profile case.
As the patent battle continues across borders, it remains to be seen how other jurisdictions will respond to similar challenges regarding VYNDAMAX and whether further legal actions will alter the course of the ongoing dispute.
dispute
“Linezolid” Patent Revoked After Post-Grant Opposition by Symed Labs
The Indian Patent Office has revoked Patent No. 281489 (Application No. 201641013830) following a post-grant opposition filed by Symed Labs. The patent was granted on 20 March, 2017 and the post grant opposition was filed on 5 March, 2018. The patentee had also amended its claims during the opposition proceedings and urged that the application under Form 13 (for amendment of claims) be disposed of so as to be certain of the final set of allowed claims for the hearing. The revocation was based on several grounds:
Lack of Inventive Step (Obviousness): The controller concluded that the patent was found to lack an inventive step, meaning the claimed invention was obvious to someone skilled in the field.
Non-Patentability Under Section 3(d): The invention also did not meet the criteria for patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, which states that new forms of known substances that do not result in enhanced efficacy.
Failure to Disclose Information Under Section 8: The patent holder failed to disclose required information as per Section 8 of the Patents Act 1970, which mandates the disclosure of including the disclosure of status of those applications, at the time of filing and during the prosecution of the patent. regarding corresponding foreign applications of this invention.
This patent pertained to Linezolid, an antibiotic used to treat pneumonia, skin infections, and drug-resistant tuberculosis. The earlier patent for Linezolid had expired on January 1, 2012. The revocation of this patent may have implications for the availability and pricing of Linezolid in India. This decision has highlighted the need for quality standards and more careful examination when it is about critical drugs, particularly in light of public health considerations and the potential for monopolistic practices.
Lack of Inventive Step (Obviousness): The controller concluded that the patent was found to lack an inventive step, meaning the claimed invention was obvious to someone skilled in the field.
Non-Patentability Under Section 3(d): The invention also did not meet the criteria for patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, which states that new forms of known substances that do not result in enhanced efficacy.
Failure to Disclose Information Under Section 8: The patent holder failed to disclose required information as per Section 8 of the Patents Act 1970, which mandates the disclosure of including the disclosure of status of those applications, at the time of filing and during the prosecution of the patent. regarding corresponding foreign applications of this invention.
This patent pertained to Linezolid, an antibiotic used to treat pneumonia, skin infections, and drug-resistant tuberculosis. The earlier patent for Linezolid had expired on January 1, 2012. The revocation of this patent may have implications for the availability and pricing of Linezolid in India. This decision has highlighted the need for quality standards and more careful examination when it is about critical drugs, particularly in light of public health considerations and the potential for monopolistic practices.
Longi sues JinkoSolar for infringement of new patent technology
Longi, has filed lawsuits against JinkoSolar for their patent infringement, both the companies are leading players in the solar industry. The legal actions have been initiated in both countries China and the United States.
In China, Longi has filed the lawsuit at the Jinan Intermediate People’s Court in Shandong and requested an immediate halt to the manufacturing, sales, and offers to sell the allegedly infringing products and other related activities to it. The Court has accepted the case, with an expected trial date of March 20.
In the United States, the lawsuit was filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging patent infringement of Jinko Solar’s TOPCon and multiple other unspecified photovoltaic module products.
Longi claims that JinkoSolar has infringed upon its intellectual property (IP) related to solar technology, specifically patents concerning the production and design of solar cells and panels. This dispute comes out as both companies are at the forefront of solar technology innovation. The patents plays a critical role in protecting advancements in the highly competitive solar energy sector.
The lawsuits highlight the ongoing tensions in the renewable energy industry, where patent disputes are becoming increasingly common as companies rush to secure a competitive edge in the rapidly growing market for solar energy products. In these types of cases, the outcome can impact product sales, partnerships, and overall market positioning for the companies involved.
It remains to be seen how these lawsuits will unfold, but they signal the importance of intellectual property rights in the clean energy sector.
In China, Longi has filed the lawsuit at the Jinan Intermediate People’s Court in Shandong and requested an immediate halt to the manufacturing, sales, and offers to sell the allegedly infringing products and other related activities to it. The Court has accepted the case, with an expected trial date of March 20.
In the United States, the lawsuit was filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging patent infringement of Jinko Solar’s TOPCon and multiple other unspecified photovoltaic module products.
Longi claims that JinkoSolar has infringed upon its intellectual property (IP) related to solar technology, specifically patents concerning the production and design of solar cells and panels. This dispute comes out as both companies are at the forefront of solar technology innovation. The patents plays a critical role in protecting advancements in the highly competitive solar energy sector.
The lawsuits highlight the ongoing tensions in the renewable energy industry, where patent disputes are becoming increasingly common as companies rush to secure a competitive edge in the rapidly growing market for solar energy products. In these types of cases, the outcome can impact product sales, partnerships, and overall market positioning for the companies involved.
It remains to be seen how these lawsuits will unfold, but they signal the importance of intellectual property rights in the clean energy sector.
Mixed result for Nokia and Amazon in dispute over streaming technology
Nokia and Amazon had a mixed outcome at the Düsseldorf Regional Court as both companies were navigate legal disputes related to streaming technology.
Amazon and Nokia are involved in a legal dispute concerning multiple streaming technology patents, with the Regional Court Düsseldorf playing a key role in the rulings.
Patent EP 2 271 048 B1 (EP 048) filed by Amazon, explains a method for provisioning multimedia services that display additional information (like actor details) alongside streaming video. The court ruled that Amazon infringed this patent (case ID: 4c O 49/23). The court ordered Amazon to stop using the infringing technology in their video software and devices. Additionally, Amazon must provide information regarding the use of the technology since January 1, 2023, and compensate Nokia for damages incurred due to the infringement. To enforce this ruling, Nokia has to provide security in the amount of €646.75 million.
Patent EP 2 130 150 B1 (EP 150) filed by Nokia, discloses a systems and methods for arranging media files, such as recommending additional content to users. The court dismissed the infringement claim for this patent (case ID 4c O 50/23), meaning Amazon was not found to infringe on this specific technology.
The case was overseen by a panel of three judges namely Sabine Wimmers, Stephan Janich, and presiding judge Sabine Klepsch.