Enforcement of patent rights through the agency of the Federal Antiminopoly Service

Client Anvilab, LLC (Russia)

Description

Anvilab, LLC (Russia), being owner of a Eurasian patent to an invention “Anti-influenza agents” and also a manufacturer of medicine “AnviMax” discovered presence of “Angricaps Maxima”, a medicinal drug produced by UP Minskintercaps (Belarus) on the market.
According to the results of conducted examination it was found that the invention described in the Eurasian patent was used in “Angricaps Maxima” drug. The patent owner did not give his consent to use the invention.

Solution

As it is problematic to take actions against a foreign manufacturer because of foreign jurisdiction and court competence, in order to enforce the infringed rights the lawyers of Gorodissky & Partners law firm suggested that the patent owner should apply to the local office of Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) with a complaint against the person who sells the controversial drug. Under FAS’s decision the drugstore selling “Angricaps Maxima” medicinal drug was found guilty of violating Article 14 of Law on Protection of Competition.

The manufacturer Minskintercaps appealed FAS’s decision in the Commercial court. During the court hearings the appellant claimed that FAS’s decision was unlawful as independent expert report was not ordered by the antimonopoly body. Upon appellant’s request The court ordered an expert report to be conducted by experts of the Chamber of Industry and Commerce. The experts concluded that the invention described in the Eurasian patent had not been used in the medicinal drug in question. Attorneys of Gorodissky & Partners thoroughly reviewed the experts’ opinion and concluded that the expert’s conclusions were contradictory and the methodology of preparing a report was not based on the law. In particular, the appointed experts did not use the doctrine of equivalents. The patent owner asked the court to order another expert report which fully supported patent owner’s conclusions.

Result

"As a result of the court proceedings the Commercial court rejected the Minskintercaps appeal and upheld FAS’s decision. The judgment of the first instance court was confirmed by the decision of the court of appeal. Therefore, the suggested strategy of enforcing the client’s rights against the foreign manufacturer did pay off and the expected goals were achieved."