François Pochart

AD Article

The new confidentiality regime attached to in-house counsel legal opinions: what impact on preliminary investigative measures such as the seizure of infringing goods (“saisie-contrefaçon”) or measure based on article 145 of the French civil procedure code?

The new Article 58-1 of the Law of December 31, 1971 , whose entry into force will be determined by decree, establishes a new confidentiality regime for in-house counsel legal opinions. What impact will this new regime have on preliminary investigative measures such as the seizure of infringing goods (“saisie-contrefaçon”) or measure based on article 145 of the French civil procedure code (“CPC”)? and how will it interact with the regime for the protection of trade secrets provided for in the French Commercial Code?

AD Article

No commitment, no certificate: loose combinations and the SPC regulation

Read the full article on https://www.iam-media.com/article/no-commitment-no-certificate-loose-combinations-and-the-spc-regulation In this article, Franç

AD Article

Pharma Package – Deal at the EU level on a major pharma reform

The European Parliament and the Council of the EU have reached a provisional agreement on the Pharma Package, the most significant overhaul of EU pharmaceutical law in the past twenty years. The reform introduces a new directive and regulation that update regulatory data protection rules, expand the Bolar exemption, strengthen obligations on medicine supply and market continuity, and create a new transferable exclusivity voucher to incentivize priority antibiotic development. The agreement now awaits formal adoption before entering into force.

AD Article

François Pochart, partner at August Debouzy and European patent attorney, represents Abbott with Taylor Wessing in strategic Unified Patent Court litigation

François Pochart, partner at August Debouzy (AD), has successfully represented global healthcare leader Abbott Diabetes Care, alongside Taylor Wessing, in several major proceedings before the Unified Patent Court (UPC), including actions before the Paris Central and Local Divisions, both Paris and The Hague. AD team, led by François Pochart, worked in close collaboration with Christian Dekoninck and the international Taylor Wessing team.

AD Article

Added matter before the UPC: an approach identical to that of the EPO

Before the UPC, as before the EPO, patent validity litigations frequently include one or more attacks for non-compliance with Article 123(2) EPC concerning the extension of the claimed subject matter beyond the content of the application as filed. Based on the UPC's case law on this subject, we sought to understand the criteria applied by the UPC to determine whether a patent complies with the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC. In the cases Abbott v. Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. (together Sibionics ) concerning Abbott's patent EP-3 831 283, the validity of claim 1 of the patent under Article 123(2) EPC was one of the key issues. Sibionics launched multiple attacks in this regard, arguing in particular that claim 1 resulted from an unallowable intermediate generalisation. This argument was used both in defence against Abbott's application for a provisional injunction before The Hague Local Division and in its action for revocation related to the same patent before the Paris Central Division. The application for a provisional injunction gave rise to a first instance decision followed by an appeal decision , and the revocation action gave rise to a first instance decision . While Sibionics won in first instance in The Hague – the patent being considered more likely to be invalid due to added matter – Abbott won on appeal – the patent being considered more likely to be valid and infringed – and, in the revocation action, before the Paris Central Division – the patent being considered valid by the Court in first instance. Let us examine the grounds for these three decisions.

AD Article

UPC Court of Appeal Clarifies Standards for Imminent Infringement in Pharmaceutical Patent Disputes

The UPC Court of Appeal clarifies imminent infringement in pharma cases, overturning Boehringer v. Zentiva ruling and aligning with EU case law.

AD Article

The LD Lisbon Offers Some Limited Insight on Imminent Threat of Infringement

On 8 May 2025, the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (“UPC”) issued an order (Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v. Zentiva Portugal LDA, Lisbon LD, 8 May 2025, UPC_CFI_41/2025) denying a preliminary injunction application filed by Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH (“Boehringer”) against Zentiva Portugal LDA (“Zentiva”).

AD Article

First Unified Patent Court Ruling on Second Medical Use Claims

On 13 May 2025, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued a landmark decision on the merits relating to a second medical use claim (Sanofi Biotechnology SAS and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Amgen Inc. et al., 13 May 2025, UPC_CFI_505/2024). The decision follows an infringement action brought by Regeneron and Sanofi, respectively the proprietor and exclusive licensee of European Patent No 3 536 712 ("EP’712"), against various entities of the Amgen group, which subsequently filed a counterclaim for revocation. The claimants argued that the defendants’ product, evolocumab, marketed as Repatha® infringed EP’712.

AD Article

Infringement by equivalence before the preliminary injunction judge: where has the obvioussness gone?

Is it possible to obtain a preliminary injunction (PI) based only on infringement by equivalence? While a 2017 PI order clearly answered no to this que

AD Article

Recasting the existing EU SPC regulations and introducing a unitary SPC: recent progress and future steps

La Commission européenne a proposé une réforme des Certificats Complémentaires de Protection (CCP) pour les médicaments, avec un CCP unitaire et une refonte du règlement existant. Le Parlement européen a adopté ces textes le 28 février dernier. L'EUIPO examinera les demandes de CCP, avec des mécanismes de contrôle et de recours. Les textes intègrent la jurisprudence de la CJUE pour assurer la cohérence. Les prochaines étapes incluent des discussions avec le Conseil de l'Union européenne dans le cadre des trilogues. Les élections européennes ne devraient pas interrompre le processus législatif.