Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Patents
  • Published:

Safe harbors in Europe: an update on the research and Bolar exemptions to patent infringement

Nature Biotechnology volume 33, pages 710–715 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

Though the major European Union member states all have research and Bolar exemptions in their patent laws, the scope and effect differs considerably from country to country.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. 733 F.2d 858, Fed. Cir. 1984.

  2. Act of 28 April 2005 amending the Belgian Patent Act relating to the patentability of biotechnological inventions, implementing Directive 98/44/EC of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions.

  3. Remiche, B. & Cassiers, V. Droit des brevets d'inventions et du savoir-faire, p.311 (Larcier, Brussels, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Van Gelder, N. T.Gez. 214 (2012–13).

  5. Van Overwalle, G. IRDI 359 (2005).

  6. De Jong, P. et al. TBH 439 (2014).

  7. BGH judgment of 1 July 1995, file number: X ZR 99/92, NJW 1996, 782, 785–Clinical Trials I. https://www.jurion.de/Urteile/BGH/1995-07-11/X-ZR-99_92

  8. BGH judgment of 17 April 1997, file number: X ZR 68/94, NJW 1996, 3092, 3093–Clinical Trials II. https://www.jurion.de/Urteile/BGH/1997-04-17/X-ZR-68_94

  9. Higher Regional Court (OLG) Düsseldorf judgment of 26 July 2012, file number: 4a O 282/10, GRUR-RR 2014, 100, 103–Solifenacin. http://www.duesseldorfer-archiv.de/?q=node/4631

  10. Hufnagel, F. Dieners/Reese Handbuch des Pharmarechts, § 14 par. 148–150 (C.H. Beck, Munich, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kraßer, R. Patentrecht, 33.IV.b)3 (C.H. Beck, Munich 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ohly, A. JZ 545, 553 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Pitz, J. Patentverletzungsverfahren, part 4 para. 67c (C.H. Beck, Munich, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Holzapfel, H. GRUR Int. 10 (2006).

  15. von Meibom, W. et al. Festschrift for Kurt Bartenbach (Carl Heymanns, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hufnagel, F., Dieners/Reese Handbuch des Pharmarechts, (C.H. Beck, Munich, 2010), § 14 par. 150.

  17. Supreme Court 3 December 1970 n. 2538.

  18. Supreme Court 27 February 1976 n. 240.

  19. International Association for the Protection of the Intellectual Property. Spanish Report of Q202.

  20. Netherlands Enterprise Agency. Dutch Patent Act 1995. http://english.rvo.nl/topics/innovation/patents-other-ip-rights/patent-law/patent-act-1995

  21. Monsanto Co. v. Stauffer Chemical Co. [1985] R.P.C. 515.

  22. Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd v Evans Medical Ltd [1989] F.S.R. 513.

  23. Corevalve Inc v Edwards Lifesciences AG [2009] F.S.R. 8.

  24. OJ L 311, 28. 2001, p. 67, consolidated version: http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-1/dir_2001_83_consol_2012/dir_2001_83_cons_2012_en.pdf

  25. Act of 1 May 2006 relating to the revision of pharmaceutical legislation, implementing (inter alia) Article 10(6) Directive 2001/83 in the Act of 25 March 1964 on Medicines.

  26. Mignolet, O. (ed.). Traité de droit pharmaceutique (Kluwer, Waterloo, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Rb. Brussel 8 april 2008, IRDI 2009, 31.

  28. Brussel 2 juli 2007, IRDI 2007, 264.

  29. Van den Bulck, P. et al. Ing. Cons. 34 (2006).

  30. Van Overwalle, G. et al. Chizaiken Forum 3 (2006).

  31. Lemaire, O. Ing. Cons. 436 (2000).

  32. Wellcome Foundation v. Parexel International and Flamel, High Court of Paris, 20 February 2001.

  33. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v. Lilly France, High Court of Paris, 15 December 2014 and 7 October 2014.

  34. Higher Regional Court (OLG) Düsseldorf judgment of 26 July 2012, file number: 4a O 282/10, GRUR-RR 2014, 100, 102 et seq. – Solifenacin. http://www.duesseldorfer-archiv.de/?q=node/4631

  35. BT-Drucks. 15/5316, p. 1, 31.

  36. Italian Supreme Court Penal division, 30 April 2003.

  37. Dutch Supreme Court, 18 December 1992, NJ 1993,735 ICI/Medicopharma (confirmed in Dutch Supreme Court 23 June 1995, NJ 1996,463 Organon/ARS).

  38. Patents Act 1977, s.60(5)(i).

  39. Changes to patents legislation made by the Legislative Reform (Patents) Order 2014 from 1 October 2014. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/355288/legislative-reform-changes.pdf

  40. The Legislative Reform (Patents) Order 2014: Explanatory document by the Intellectual Property Office, an Executive Agency of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1997/pdfs/uksiod_20141997_en.pdf

  41. Ibid., paragraph 3.24.

  42. OJ L 361, 31.12.2012, p. 1.

  43. OJ C 175, 20.6.2013, p.1.

  44. Astellas Pharma, Inc. v. Polpharma SA Pharmaceutical Works, case C-661/13, closed by the decision of the President of the Court of Justice dated May 7th, 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:588.

Download references

Acknowledgements

All of the authors have contributed equally to this work. For further information, see http://www.bolar.eu. This article is in no way intended to provide legal advice. The views expressed are solely the personal views of the authors and not their firms' or clients' views. No liability is accepted for any statement in this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kupecz Intellectual Property, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

    András Kupecz

  2. Crowell & Moring LLP, Brussels, Belgium

    Kristof Roox & Christian Dekoninck

  3. Cabinet Schertenleib, Paris, France

    Denis Schertenleib

  4. Maiwald Partnerschaftsgesellschaft Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte, Munich, Germany

    Marco Stief

  5. Orsingher Avvocati Associati, Milan, Italy

    Fabrizio Sanna & Matteo Orsingher

  6. Intangibles Legal SLP, Barcelona, Spain

    Sergio Miralles & Elena Molina

  7. Marks & Clerk Solicitors LLP, London, UK

    Trevor Crosse, Mike Gilbert & Will James

Authors
  1. András Kupecz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristof Roox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christian Dekoninck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Denis Schertenleib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marco Stief
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fabrizio Sanna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Matteo Orsingher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sergio Miralles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Elena Molina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Trevor Crosse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Mike Gilbert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Will James
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to András Kupecz.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kupecz, A., Roox, K., Dekoninck, C. et al. Safe harbors in Europe: an update on the research and Bolar exemptions to patent infringement. Nat Biotechnol 33, 710–715 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3273

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3273

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing