Recently we successfully help our client, a Top 10 pharmaceutical enterprises in China, invalidate two series of patents for invention involving liposomal drugs owned by a well-known foreign biopharmaceutical enterprise, as the CNIPA has just made the Decision to declare invalidation of all claims of the two patents due to the lack of inventiveness. The liposomal drug has been approved globally for the indication of pancreatic cancer, with sales of about 160 million euros in the United States in 2022, and is expected to reach more than one billion yuan in domestic market. And the invalidation of the patents clears the roadblock for the launch of domestic generic drugs.
In the process of preparing the invalidation request, our attorneys maintained sufficient communication with our client, and engaged in comprehensive discussions regarding the understanding of technical solution of the alleged patents, the selection of legal grounds for patent invalidation and the argument perspective, the collection and use of evidence, and the design of the comparative experiments. Our client also provided full technical support in light of the difficulty of the technical contents.
In petition, based on the sufficient research of the alleged patents and evidence, our attorneys stated grounds for invalidation, arguing that the alleged patents did not comply with the provisions of Article 26(3), Article 26(4), and Article 22(3) of the Patent Law and Article 20(1) of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Chinese Patent Law.
Prior to the oral hearing, our attorney and client had an in-depth discussion on the challenges that they may face in oral hearing and engineered defense strategies accordingly. In order to thoroughly explain the focus of dispute-preparation method or composition and structure relation would have a significant impact on physicochemical property of products, we elaborated the technical solution and technical effect with graphical demonstration.
In the invalidation decision, the Collegial Panel agreed with our invalidation ground of lacking inventiveness based on a detailed study and analysis of the embodiments documented in description, and finally determined that the alleged patent does not possess inventiveness in view of D1 in combination with the other cited documents.
In the process of preparing the invalidation request, our attorneys maintained sufficient communication with our client, and engaged in comprehensive discussions regarding the understanding of technical solution of the alleged patents, the selection of legal grounds for patent invalidation and the argument perspective, the collection and use of evidence, and the design of the comparative experiments. Our client also provided full technical support in light of the difficulty of the technical contents.
In petition, based on the sufficient research of the alleged patents and evidence, our attorneys stated grounds for invalidation, arguing that the alleged patents did not comply with the provisions of Article 26(3), Article 26(4), and Article 22(3) of the Patent Law and Article 20(1) of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Chinese Patent Law.
Prior to the oral hearing, our attorney and client had an in-depth discussion on the challenges that they may face in oral hearing and engineered defense strategies accordingly. In order to thoroughly explain the focus of dispute-preparation method or composition and structure relation would have a significant impact on physicochemical property of products, we elaborated the technical solution and technical effect with graphical demonstration.
In the invalidation decision, the Collegial Panel agreed with our invalidation ground of lacking inventiveness based on a detailed study and analysis of the embodiments documented in description, and finally determined that the alleged patent does not possess inventiveness in view of D1 in combination with the other cited documents.