Source: https://www.patentlitigation.ch/not-protected-spc/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 14:01:42+00:00

Document:
Note that Hepp Wenger Ryffel AG is involved in this matter on behalf of the plaintiff.
This case is all about the SPC granting practice in Switzerland, ie whether or not – and if so, how – the granting practice shall be brought in line with the recent case law of the CJEU post-Medeva.
The question of whether or not a product is protected by a basic patent is decisive for an SPC both in the European Community (Regulation (EC) No. 469/2009, Art. 3 lit. a) and Switzerland (Art. 140b(1) lit. a PatA).
Towards this end, the so-called ‘infringement test’ has been applied in Switzerland since the Supreme Court’s decision BGE 124 III 375 – Fosinopril in 1998. On the contrary, the CJEU explicitly disapproved the ‘infringement test’ with its decision CJEU C-322/10 – Medeva in 2011.
For more background information see this Blog here and the official court information about the hearing.
The pleadings initially focussed on two issues, ie the relevance of the reasons for harmonization given by the CJEU for Switzerland; and the differently phrased criteria used by the CJEU in its decisions post-Medeva. The court had explicitly invited the parties to extend their pleading to these two issues.
Plaintiff essentially argued that the ratio legis of the Swiss SPC regulation requires that the ‘infringement test’ be set aside, and that this change of practice shall be applicable with immediate effect for SPCs granted under the Fosinopril regime. It has been referred to various other European jurisdictions where this has been the outcome in parallel proceedings.
On the contrary, defendant argued with multiple lines of defense. First, when the legal situation of 2006 was applied, the case should be dismissed. Only if it was now decided in favour of a change of practice, it would still need to be decided whether or not this should have retroactive effect. If one were to accept a retroactive effect, the criteria established by the CJEU would need to assessed. The parties disagreed whether the CJEU has established a sufficiently consistent approach.
All in all, the hearing took very long. The plaintiff’s reply was finished after 2h at about 12am; defendant asked for a break of 2h to adapt his rejoinder which then took about 3h. It remains to be seen whether reply/rejoinder in a hearing in main proceedings is a model for success.
The parties did not enter into settlement discussions.
Mepha Pharma AG ./. Gilead Sciences Inc.

References: CJEU 
 Art. 3
 CJEU 
 CJEU 
 CJEU 
 CJEU 
 CJEU 
 CJEU