Patent Litigation | Company S Reverses the First-Instance Judgment and Prevails on Appeal in a Vaccine Patent Lawsuit

This patent litigation originated in 2017.

In 2016, the domestic pharmaceutical company S became the first in the country to develop the 13-valent pneumococcal vaccine "S" and obtained product approval from the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety.

In response, in 2017, a subsidiary of the global pharmaceutical company P (hereinafter "Company P") brought patent litigation claiming that the vaccine infringed the patent for its own 13-valent pneumococcal vaccine "P" and demanding a halt to domestic sales and damages.

At the time, this case proceeded all the way to the Supreme Court and concluded in favor of Company P, and the parties reached a settlement under which Company S would not domestically produce or sell vaccine S until April 2027.

Subsequently, however, in 2018, the dispute reignited when Company S exported 13 individual protein-conjugate drug substances to a Russian pharmaceutical company for research purposes.

Company P regarded this as patent infringement as well and proceeded with additional litigation.

Having lost at the first instance of the patent litigation, Company S filed an appeal.

The Patent Court reversed the first-instance judgment and ruled in favor of Company S.

The following examines the principal issues in this patent litigation and the appellate court's determination.

Patent litigation by domestic pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies is frequently directed against large global pharmaceutical companies.

For example, Company A, which developed technology for converting an intravenous injection into a more easily administered subcutaneous (SC) formulation, was also raised as a candidate that might become entangled in patent litigation with its only competitor, Company H of the United States.

Patent litigation over pharmaceutical and biotechnology IP involves a protracted process because of complex technical issues and the difficulty of gathering evidence.

To secure a favorable position in patent litigation such as this case, one must understand the technical complexity and accurately assess the scope of the patent rights, whether infringement has occurred, and validity.

In addition, because the losing party is likely to file an appeal or a final appeal, it is important to receive the assistance of an experienced attorney and to prepare thoroughly for protracted litigation.

The Intellectual Property Group of Daeryun Law Firm LLP forms teams of Korean Bar Association-registered 🔗intellectual property attorneys, as well as attorneys handling medical matters and patent attorneys with experience at the Patent Court and at large pharmaceutical companies, and it carries out a range of intellectual property work, including patent litigation and patent oppositions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, thoroughly protecting clients' rights.