IP Decisions
Subject | [Patent] Patent Court Decision, 2016Heo4498, decided March 16, 2017(Overactive Bladder Remedy Patent Term Extension Case) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writer | Á¤º¸°ø°³´ã´çÀÚ | Date | 2018.02.12 | Hit | 645 |
Attachments | 2017_[4]2016Heo4498.pdf | ||||
Patent Court Decision, 2016Heo4498, decided March 16, 2017 (Overactive Bladder Remedy Patent Term Extension Case)
Article 89(2) of the Patent Act excludes the period which has elapsed for reasons attributable to the patentee, etc. from the period during which the subject invention would not have been practiced. In this case, "the period which has elapsed for reasons attributable to the patentee" means the period during which approval under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, etc. was delayed for reasons attributable to the patentee, i.e., the period during which a considerable causal relationship is recognized between the reason attributable to the patentee and the delay of the approval under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. In light of the process, etc. of Subject Approval, the period during which the Subject Extended Invention would not have been practiced should be calculated based on the period from June 23, 2010 (patent registration date) to August 10, 2010 (clinical trial termination date) and the period from January 31, 2013 (date of filing an application for the Subject Approval) to December 31, 2013 (the date when the Subject Approval decision was notified to the applicant).
|
Previous | [Patent] Patent Court Decision, 2016Heo8636, ... |
---|---|
Next | [Patent] Patent Court Decision, 2015Heo7889, ... |