What Is A Patent Settlement Agreement

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled for the first time on the issue of settlement agreements involving a transfer of value (monetary or otherwise) between the holder of a pharmaceutical patent and generic manufacturers (so-called “late payment” agreements). It clarified the criteria that accession to such an agreement may infringe EU anti-cartel rules, either on the grounds that it is an anti-competitive agreement or because it constitutes an abuse of a dominant position by the manufacturer of the original medicinal product (the author). In assessing whether a patent settlement agreement leads to an “effective” restriction of competition, the CJEU ruled that it was necessary to determine how the market would function without the agreement. However, it is not necessary to determine to what extent it is likely that a generic manufacturer would have succeeded in the original patent dispute or that a settlement agreement could have been reached that was less restrictive of competition. Kenall`s relevant patent family eventually grew to five patents: the original patent, two suites, and two newly granted patents. Kenall noted cooper in 2015 that Cooper had not made any royalty payments since early 2008, (1) Cooper had not labeled its products under license, and (3) Cooper had not redesigned any of its products under the agreement. For such a patent settlement strategy to take account of abuses, it must be able to restrict competition and, in particular, have exclusionary effects which, taken as a whole, go beyond the anti-competitive effects of each individual settlement agreement. Patent settlement agreements as an “inevitable” restriction of competition? Kenall Manufacturing sued Cooper Lighting for infringement of a patent related to modular lighting fixtures, which eventually closed the case and entered into a licensing agreement. Kenall waived its allegations of prior infringement and granted Cooper a non-exclusive license to the patent and all patents arising from the original patent.

Cooper also agreed to label its products with a patent notice, pay Kenall a one-time fee, make quarterly royalty payments based on the sale of the counterfeit products, and redesign one of its products to prevent counterfeiting. .

Comments are closed.