Relief Therapeutics Holding AG (RLFTF)

[changes_iv]

The doctrine of equivalents is a judicially-created doctrine that allows a court to find infringement when an accused instrumentality performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result as the patented invention, or is insubstantially different from the patented invention.

https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/events/recent-pharmaceutical-and-biotech-patent-case-law-on-infringement-under-the-doctrine-of-equivalents-051220.html

The doctrine of equivalents is a legal rule in patent law whereby a party can be liable for infringement even though the party does not literally or precisely infringe every limitation of a patent claim

Pharmaceutical companies therefore need sharp patent counsel both to protect their own inventions and to avoid infringement. Sophisticated companies rely on counsel to consider the doctrine of equivalents and its limitations at all phases of product development. Companies should be mindful during prosecution of patent applications to avoid inadvertently surrendering claim scope and barring themselves from later relying on the doctrine of equivalents. Conversely, companies looking to design around competitors’ patents must study the specification and prosecution history carefully to determine where they can safely practice without risking infringement. And, of course, companies require litigation counsel who can navigate this complex area of patent law.

https://www.iam-media.com/litigation/making-sense-of-the-doctrine-of-equivalents-in-pharmaceutical-patent-litigation

A patent infringement case between Cadence and Exela over the manufacturing process for injectable Tylenol ruled against Exela. The drug Tylenol is not under exclusive patent itself. The injection form however had many issues due to instability of the drug if specific manufacturing process, buffers and techniques weren't used. —— —> Exela tweaked to manufacturing process, modified the buffers and non active ingredients to create a stable, safe product. Cadence sued for infringement and won. <——— The courts did not feel that the tweaks resulted in a product that served a unique and different mechanism or treatment outcome. Even though the manufacturing differed from the original, they infringed and could not market their version.

~ CA_Newby, Y@h00 RLFTF finance conversations