INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Andreas von Falck, Hogan Lovells International LLP
their employment, where the inventive activ- ity is contemplated as the subject matter of the employment agreement and compen- sation for such inventive activity has been expressly agreed between the employer and the employee, and regularly granted to the latter; and • non-remunerated inventions – the inventions developed by an employee in the course of the employment relationship, where no compensation has been previously agreed or granted for the inventive activity and where, in light of that circumstance, a fair compensa- tion to the employee is required. The Court held that, with respect to non-remu- nerated inventions, according to Article 64 of the IPC, the fair remuneration due to the employ- ee does not depend on whether the invention was actually exploited by the employer or not. This is because patents may hold value (at least, against third parties) even if they are not exploited. Fair remuneration is thus due even if the employer did not profit from the invention. In such cases, the traditional method for determin- ing the fair remuneration (the so-called “German formula”) is not applicable, since it is based on the employer’s profits. Therefore, the fair remu- neration of the employee shall be determined on an equitable basis. Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) The EAEU’s single pharmaceutical market con- tinues to provide for a simplified, generic MA approval for the EAEU member states. For inno- vators this means a need to closely monitor the Unified EAEU Register of drugs and the national registers of the EAEU member states (Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia) as well as information on bioequivalence studies in those territories. To date, a search through the Unified EAEU Register of drugs will not provide
full information on the activities of generics pro- ducers. Hence, only careful checking of national registers (often combined with inquiries to the local healthcare authorities) can identify in which member state a generics producer has taken steps aimed at obtaining an MA for the whole of the EAEU territory. Simultaneously the Russian regulatory data protection (RDP) regulation has been amended by reference to the EAEU MA; allowing right holders to use it as a basis for RDP claims. The regional RDP court practice is yet to be developed. The Eurasian Patent Office’s pharma patents register, introduced in 2022, has proved useful in 2024. The recordals of Eurasian pharma patents with the register were accepted by state authori- ties considering disputes between originators and manufacturers of generic pharmaceutical products as sufficient evidence of wrongdoing by generics businesses. There is a hope that this register may be used for patent linkage purposes going forward. Pharma patent disputes in the EAEU member states are largely decided by the courts in a bal- anced manner unless the claims of patent right holders originate in countries that have intro- duced sanctions against Russia and Belarus. In a nutshell, international businesses have contin- ued to enforce patent rights in the EAEU states. More than before, there have been attempts to challenge validity as well as patent term exten- sions (PTEs). Simultaneously, the generic pro- ducers have demonstrated more willingness to negotiate amicable settlements with originators. Obtaining PIs in the EAEU remains a challenge. It seems, however, that a need for a change in the availability of PIs in the region is understood by the state authorities. While PIs have remained unavailable in patent disputes before the courts, several international originators have initiated
12
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook