Sorafenib Tosylate (BGH)

Decision Keyword:

Sorafenib tosylate

Law applied:

EPC Art. 54 (1); PatG Section 3 (1)

PatG Section 87 (1)

ZPO Section 286 G

Summary:

EPC Art. 54 para. 1; German Patent Act (PatG) Section 3 para. 1

The disclosure of more than 100 active ingredients which are described as suitable for the treatment of cancer, either alone or in the form of a pharmaceutically acceptable salt with numerous salt formers under consideration, is not sufficient for the direct and unambiguous disclosure of a specific salt of a single active ingredient in a form suitable for oral administration.

German Patent Act (PatG) Section 87 para. 1

1. There is a rebuttable presumption in favor of the entitlement to claim a priority right when applying for a European patent.
2. The joint filing of a PCT application designating the applicant of the priority application for one or more destination states and another person for one or more other destination states implies an agreement between the parties entitling the other person to claim priority (likewise EPO, decision of 10 October 2023 - G 1/22 - Priority entitlement).

German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) Section 286 G

In patent nullity proceedings, the burden of presentation and proof regarding the requirements for an effective claim of priority lies with the nullity action.

Federal Supreme Court (BGH), Decision of 28 November 2023 – X ZR 83/21 –

Download Judgment (machine translation)

>>Further Judgments

Header: photophonie_AdobeStock.com