The Committee for the Review of Pharmaceutical Information recently confirmed the strict approach to the marketing of medicinal products in relation to pricing. The committee's findings serve as a reminder that companies should consider not only the intended purpose of offering a discount on a product, but also its actual effects. The case under review illustrates that an intended discount on a product may be considered contrary to the Ethical Rules for the Pharmaceutical Industry.
The Supreme Court has ruled that cannabidiol (CBD) oils containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) which originates from legally cultivated hemp constitute illegal narcotics. The court argued that since CBD oil can be defined as a preparation in accordance with the Convention on Psychotropic Substances and contains THC, it is an illegal substance. This decision is likely to affect several aspects of Swedish healthcare regulation, including that relating to medicinal products.
The Stockholm Administrative Court recently ruled that under the so-called 'trilogue negotiations' between pharmaceutical companies, the Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency and the Swedish regions could require an originator company to compensate them for products marketed by parallel importers.
The Stockholm Administrative Court recently ruled that the obligation on tenderers of public procurements of medicinal products to have routines which ensure that the use and handling of active ingredients would have as little effect on the environment as possible, as well as the obligation that they routinely survey and have dialogue with their subcontractors, were permissible. The decision has been appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal in Stockholm, which has yet to make a decision.
In eight landmark decisions, the Patent and Market Court of Appeal decided that the terms for already granted supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) should be recalculated in order to reflect a 2015 European Court of Justice decision regarding the method for calculating SPC terms under EU Regulation 469/2009. Several pharmaceutical companies that had been granted SPCs noted that the Patent and Registration Office's method of calculating SPC terms was not in line with EU law.
The Patent and Market Court of Appeal recently ordered several internet service providers to take blocking measures against Sci-Hub and LibGen. The case is interesting in light of the court's 2019 decision in a similar case on interim blocking measures in which it denied blocking injunctions due to a lack of proportionality and issued stern words about the evidence invoked by the claimant and the risk of overblocking legitimate content.
For the first time, the Patent and Market Court of Appeal has confirmed that a watch can be protected by copyright as a work of applied art, even in a crowded design field. The decision enables rights holders to not only pursue counterfeits on the basis of trademark infringement, but also to prosecute copycat watch models on the basis of copyright protection in physical and digital environments.
The Patent and Market Court of Appeal recently handed down a preliminary injunction ruling in Sandoz v GD Searle LLC relating to the supplementary protection certificate (SPC) for darunavir. The ruling clarifies that SPCs enjoy a validity presumption for the purpose of a preliminary injunction ruling in the same way that patents do. However, in the instant proceedings, the court found that Sandoz, against which the lower court had issued a preliminary injunction, had managed to rebut the presumption.
The Supreme Court recently rejected the application of a hypothetical licence fee to calculate reasonable compensation for massive copyright infringement through the operation of an illegal streaming site. This decision raises several interesting questions, including to what extent an infringer's illegal business model should be taken into account when calculating reasonable compensation.
The Supreme Court recently declared that the mere passive storage of backups of copyrighted software with expired licences does not constitute copyright infringement. The judgment is significant as it clarifies which actions constitute copyright infringement and, from a practical perspective, relieves licensees from having to mine their backup servers in pursuit of potential 'sleeper' infringements.