Skip to content

Teva Nederland B.V., Teva Pharma B.V. and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe B.V. v. AstraZeneca AB, preliminary decision by the The Hague Court PI judge acting as replacement judge for the District Court North Netherlands, 22 September 2015, Case No. 15/809

Teva requests that an ongoing descriptive seizure conducted by AstraZeneca is lifted. The judge in PI proceedings agrees.

Earlier, in the course of settlement discussions relating to alleged infringement on EP '877, AstraZeneca had promised to give prior notice to Teva should it wish to invoke a different patent against Teva's DuoResp Spiromax 320µg/9µg. AstraZeneca later obtained a leave for a descriptive seizure based on EP '506 in order to obtain evidence of infringement by Teva with its DuoResp Spiromax 320µg/9µg and DuoResp Spiromax 160µg/4.5µg. AstraZeneca did not refer to earlier mentioned obligation to give prior notice in its request for leave to seize and commenced the seizure without prior notification. Teva requested the seizure to be lifted.

AstraZeneca argued (i) that a descriptive seizure falls outside the scope of the obligation as the obligation does not relate to conservative measures and (ii) that the obligation does not relate to the DuoResp Spiromax 160µg/4.5µg. The PI judge disagrees and rules that the descriptive seizure is an invoking of a different patent by AstraZeneca. Further, Teva was deprived of its defences against infringement that it could have brought forward should AstraZeneca properly have informed the Court.

Read the judgment (in Dutch) here.