Oriol Ramon

October 17, 2022

Sorafenib case: the alleged legal presumption of validity of the patent admits evidence to the contrary in injunctive relief proceedings

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.19.5″][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.0.48″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”2_5″ _builder_version=”3.0.47″ parallax=”off” parallax_method=”on”][et_pb_image src=”https://desarrollo.vidalquadrasramon.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/drugs-2.jpg” _builder_version=”3.19.5″][/et_pb_image][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”3_5″ _builder_version=”3.0.47″ parallax=”off” parallax_method=”on”][et_pb_post_title comments=”off” featured_image=”off” _builder_version=”3.19.5″ title_level=”h4″ title_font=”||||||||”][/et_pb_post_title][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.19.5″] In this brief note we refer to the Order of the Barcelona Provincial Court (15th Section) 59/2022 of 22 April, which confirmed the Order of the Barcelona Commercial Court No. 1 of ...

January 21, 2022

Reformulation of the objective technical problem and plausibility in a patent case in Spain (cinacalcet case)

In this commentary we will refer to the Judgment of the Barcelona Provincial Court (15th Section) 1610/2021 of 27 July (ECLI:ES:APB:2021:8276). We do not intend to provide a critical commentary on the Judgment, but simply to refer to some aspects that we have considered to be of interest in patent matters and, in particular, to the legal analysis of the plausibility of a technical effect on which the inventive step of patent EP 1 203 761 (EP'761) was based. This was the CCP's basic patent on the product cinacalcet.

January 21, 2022

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.19.5″][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.0.48″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”2_5″ _builder_version=”3.0.47″ parallax=”off” parallax_method=”on”][et_pb_image src=”https://desarrollo.vidalquadrasramon.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/VQR_LAW_NEW36b.jpg” _builder_version=”3.19.5″][/et_pb_image][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”3_5″ _builder_version=”3.0.47″ parallax=”off” parallax_method=”on”][et_pb_post_title comments=”off” featured_image=”off” _builder_version=”3.19.5″][/et_pb_post_title][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.19.5″] On 25 March 2021 I took part in the Matinal IP & Competencia conference that is held once a month by the Competition and Industrial Property Law Section of the Barcelona Bar Association; this ...

January 21, 2020

DANGER IN DELAY (PERICULUM IN MORA) IS STILL A RELEVANT REQUIREMENT IN CERTAIN CASES TO OBTAIN PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS IN SPAIN (THREE PI DECISIONS ON FULVESTRANT)

[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.19.5″][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”2_5″][et_pb_image _builder_version=”3.19.5″ src=”https://desarrollo.vidalquadrasramon.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/VQR_LAW_NEW20B-2.jpg” /][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”3_5″][et_pb_post_title _builder_version=”3.19.5″ comments=”off” featured_image=”off” /][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.19.5″] According to the Spanish Civil Procedural Act (CPA), there are two requirements that need to be met in order to obtain preliminary injunctions in the Spanish Courts: danger in delay (periculum in mora) and the presumption of good right (fumus boni iuris). ...