A patent application is sufficient for provisional measures
In a decision of 3 June 2022 in NOVARTIS v. BIOGARAN, the Paris Judicial Court held admissible an application for provisional measures founded on an application for a European patent. Surprising as that outcome may appear at first sight, it may nevertheless be justified.
La décision commentée est une ordonnance rendue dans une affaire opposant NOVARTIS à BIOGARAN concernant une autorisation de mise sur le marché obtenue par cette dernière pour la substance active fingolimod utilisée en monothérapie pour le traitement des formes très actives de la sclérose en plaques récurrente-rémittente. La demande de European patent n° EP 2 959 894, qui couvre ladite spécialité, avait été invoquée par son titulaire (NOVARTIS) comme fondement de sa demande de provisional measures, immédiatement après que la Chambre de recours de l’EPO ait ordonné à la Division d’examen de délivrer le brevet sur la base d’une seule des 11 claims soumises à l’Office, alors que le brevet n’avait pas encore été délivré. The judge nevertheless held such an action, founded on the application, to be admissible, while holding that the single claim at issue was neither novel nor inventive, so that provisional measures were not justified.
That recognition of the admissibility of the patent infringement action appears, at first sight, surprising. L’interprétation de l’Article L. 615-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code questionable. While it is true that that provision refers to the “ rights conferred by the title”, it is equally true that “title” means, in principle, the granted patent. Thus,article L. 615-4 prévoit expressément que « a court seised of an infringement action founded on a patent application shall stay the proceedings until the patent is granted« . L’interprétation retenue pourrait également contredire l’article L. 614-9 of the same Code, which sets out exhaustively the rights flowing from the application and does not mention those provided for by Article L. 615-3.
On closer inspection, however, the position taken in the decision under discussion may be consistent with the legislation, and logical, provided that the applicant furnishes sufficient guarantees. The right to the patent arises on filing of the application. Thus, in the case of a European patent application,article 67(1) de la CBE dispose que « from its publication, a European patent application provisionally confers on the applicant, in the Contracting States designated in the application, the protection provided for by Article 64« . L’article 64 which provides that “ the rights conferred by the patent”. In the light of those provisions, the “ rights conferred by the title”, referred to in Article L. 615-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code, should encompass both the patent and the published application. All the more so since, although Article L. 614-9 provides for a stay of proceedings, it does so only in the particular case of an infringement action (and not for provisional measures) and, above all, it does not expressly refer to the application “ publiée« , mais seulement à « la demande”. Moreover, surprising though it may seem, the solution adopted in the decision under discussion is not new: it had already been reached by earlier French case law. Finally, an application for a preliminary injunction is coming to resemble an infringement action, both in its effects and in the conditions of its admissibility.