National News
Pfizer loses in the case of lipid lowering medicine
In 2007, Pfizer US-PFE filed a lawsuit against Beijing Jialin Pharmaceutical Co., LTD. to Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court for patent infringement. Jialin then filed a request for invalidation of the patent involved.
The Patent Reexamination Board of SIPO held that, the patent specification and patent claims were not conformed to the Patent Law, and revoked the involved No. 96195564.3 invention patent.
Pfizer then filed a lawsuit to the Court. The Court maintained the decision of the Patent Reexamination Board. Pfizer then appealed to Beijing Higher People’s Court. The Higher Court held that, the Patent Reexamination Board did not define the issues of the invention, and did not confirm the chemical and physical parameters of the issues, which was not appropriate. So the Higher Court abrogated the judgment of the Intermediate Court.
The Patent Reexamination Board and Jialin applied for a retrial of the case to the Supreme People's Court. The Court held that, the water content was a key characteristic of the invention, and was closely related to the issues of the invention; the patent specification was not clear enough according to the Patent Law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court maintained the decision by Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court. (by Zhao Shimeng)
The Patent Reexamination Board of SIPO held that, the patent specification and patent claims were not conformed to the Patent Law, and revoked the involved No. 96195564.3 invention patent.
Pfizer then filed a lawsuit to the Court. The Court maintained the decision of the Patent Reexamination Board. Pfizer then appealed to Beijing Higher People’s Court. The Higher Court held that, the Patent Reexamination Board did not define the issues of the invention, and did not confirm the chemical and physical parameters of the issues, which was not appropriate. So the Higher Court abrogated the judgment of the Intermediate Court.
The Patent Reexamination Board and Jialin applied for a retrial of the case to the Supreme People's Court. The Court held that, the water content was a key characteristic of the invention, and was closely related to the issues of the invention; the patent specification was not clear enough according to the Patent Law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court maintained the decision by Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court. (by Zhao Shimeng)
Release Time：2015/7/3 14:13:39[ Print ]
