DE
All articles

License Fees for a Compulsory License – Isentress II – German Federal Patent Court

Dr. Raphael Bösl
Author:

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Patent Attorney
European Patent Attorney
Of Counsel

As a follow-up to our posts of July 12, 2017 and August 31, 2017. Below please find an English translation of the Guiding Principles of a decision of the German Federal Patent Court concerning the assessment of license fees for a compulsory license for a medicament against AIDS (Isentress/Raltegravir). Also posted is the entire decision in German for your convenience. Our Munich partner, Fritz Lahrtz, was one of the leading attorneys in this case.

More articles from Dr. Raphael Bösl

The “Druckexemplar” determines the extent of protection conferred by a European patent

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Restoration of the Right of Priority under the PCT – different “Criterion for Restoration” before the USPTO and the EPO

Dr. Raphael Bösl

License Fees for a Compulsory License – Isentress II – German Federal Patent Court

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Follow-up: Preliminary Injunction confirmed by the German Federal Supreme Court in a Compulsory License Proceedings concerning a Medicament against AIDS

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Preliminary Injunction confirmed by the German Federal Supreme Court in a Compulsory License Proceedings concerning a Medicament against AIDS

Dr. Raphael Bösl

EPO clarifies practice in the area of plant and animal patents

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Urgent Notice of the Federal Patent Court: Preliminary Injunction issued in a Compulsory License Proceedings concerning “Isentress” (raltegravir against AIDS)

Dr. Raphael Bösl

EPO stays all proceedings in which the invention is a plant or animal obtained by an essentially biological process

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Communication from the Chairmen of the UPC Preparatory Committee and the EPO Select Committee dealing with the Unitary Patent of July 1, 2016

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Functional Features – Essential Features: A New Perspective under Article 84 EPC

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Plant Patent Protection and Plant Variety Protection – Two Independent IP Rights?

Dr. Raphael Bösl

A pitfall to supplement information incorporated by reference under the EPC

Dr. Raphael Bösl

EPO: claims directed to the use of a product produced by a process

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO decided on Clarity – expected decision now issued (G 3/14)

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Deautomation is not per se Inventive – an Exemption from the Rule under the EPC

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Four Step Approach in Determining Sufficiency of Disclosure of a Parameter under the EPC

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Refocus on the Interpretation of “Undue Burden” for the Determination of the Scope of Protection under the EPC

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Functional Definition of Compounds in Use Claims – Different Decisions in Germany and “Europe”

Dr. Raphael Bösl
All articles