By judgment of 15 August 2023 in PI proceedings brought by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the Court of Appeal of The Hague prohibited Sandoz, Stada and Teva from marketing generic apixaban.

The Court of Appeal of The Hague affirms the first instance decision in which the PI judge of the District Court rejected Novartis’ claim for a preliminary injunction against Mylan.

In its decision of 10 May 2022 in PI proceedings between Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company (“BMS”) and Sandoz B.V. (“Sandoz”), the PI judge of the District Court of The Hague denied BMS’ claim for injunctive relief regarding the sale of generic apixaban by Sandoz. According to the Judge, there is no inventive step due to lack of plausibility and therefore a good chance that the patent (and the SPC) will be held invalid in final relief proceedings.

In its judgment of 27 October 2020, the Court of Appeal of The Hague found that the generic pemetrexed tromethamine product of Fresenius Kabi Nederland B.V. infringes EP 1 313 508 (‘EP‘508’), held by Eli Lilly and Company. Yet again a turn of events in Dutch case law, where this issue has been battled back and forth.

In a groundbreaking judgment of 14 October 2020, the District Court of The Hague ruled that AstraZeneca AB (‘AstraZeneca’) must compensate health insurer Menzis Zorgverzekeraar NV (‘Menzis’) for having enforced a patent that was later invalidated.

In the decision of 29 September 2020 the Provisions Judge not only injuncts Mylan B.V. (the Dutch subsidiary of the Mylan group) for marketing the product in NL, but also Mylan NV (the parent company based in NL) and Mylan SAS (the holder of the central marketing authorisation, based in France) for inducing and facilitating infringement elsewhere in Europe where the PE is valid, thus committing a tortuous act.