Post by xyz3000 on Feb 12, 2024 7:58:34 GMT
The Libbs Farmacêutica laboratory remains prevented from manufacturing and selling the Elani contraceptive until further court decision. Libbs is competing with the Schering laboratory in Brazil for the patent rights to the pill, which Schering sells under the name Yasmin. The determination is made by the Superior Court of Justice. Minister Vidigal understood that this is not a case in which the rapporteur's decision could be reconsidered, as the Presidency of the STJ is not a reviewing body for injunctions. Therefore, it will be up to Minister Cesar Asfor Rocha to analyze the reconsideration. The Schering AG laboratory, a North American company, holds the patent for the medicine. The company became aware of the launch of the contraceptive Elani by Libbs and claims to have verified that the product infringes the Yasmin patent.
Libbs would have already obtained Elani's registration with Anvisa – National Health Surveillance Agency. Legal battle Schering claimed that, on July, it sent an extrajudicial notification to Libbs, informing about the patent infringement. But on August 19 of that year, Libbs filed a Estonia Email List lawsuit against Schering to have the patent annulled at INPI – National Institute of Industrial Property, the federal government agency responsible for registering trademarks and patents. The 38th Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro denied Libbs' request for an injunction. The decision was upheld by the Federal Regional Court of the 2nd Region. Among Libbs' arguments was the lack of “inventive activity”, one of the requirements for patent validity.
In Brazil, the INPI validated the patent registered by Schering AG in the country of origin (United States). Libbs states that the agency failed to verify that the medicine uses technology described in another patent registered in Germany in 1980, therefore already in the public domain. According to Libbs, however, the INPI itself, in its defense, recognized the nullity of Schering's title. The Elani manufacturer then filed a new declaratory action, on Jun, this time in the 30th Central Civil Court of São Paulo. The objective was to protect the launch of the medicine, already authorized by the National Health Surveillance Agency, but, according to lawyers, constantly threatened by notifications from Schering.
Libbs would have already obtained Elani's registration with Anvisa – National Health Surveillance Agency. Legal battle Schering claimed that, on July, it sent an extrajudicial notification to Libbs, informing about the patent infringement. But on August 19 of that year, Libbs filed a Estonia Email List lawsuit against Schering to have the patent annulled at INPI – National Institute of Industrial Property, the federal government agency responsible for registering trademarks and patents. The 38th Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro denied Libbs' request for an injunction. The decision was upheld by the Federal Regional Court of the 2nd Region. Among Libbs' arguments was the lack of “inventive activity”, one of the requirements for patent validity.
In Brazil, the INPI validated the patent registered by Schering AG in the country of origin (United States). Libbs states that the agency failed to verify that the medicine uses technology described in another patent registered in Germany in 1980, therefore already in the public domain. According to Libbs, however, the INPI itself, in its defense, recognized the nullity of Schering's title. The Elani manufacturer then filed a new declaratory action, on Jun, this time in the 30th Central Civil Court of São Paulo. The objective was to protect the launch of the medicine, already authorized by the National Health Surveillance Agency, but, according to lawyers, constantly threatened by notifications from Schering.