That goes to show how difficult it is in this space to uphold these rather general patents. We will likely see more of these decisions in the future as this sector matures and former "grey areas" - now with a better understanding of the matter - can be reviewed.
I suspect that as time goes on, you'll see less statements like the one below from Claudia Jimenez, Tigenix’s senior director of investor relations and corporate communication, for this very reason. Claudia Jimenez told BioWorld that Tigenix “did not need the IP from Mesoblast to launch.” She said Tigenix licensed the IP to “add an extra layer of protection.” “We just wanted to be absolutely certain in the future that we would not encounter a problem,” she said, noting that Cx601 is protected not by the Mesoblast patent but by Tigenix’s own composition-of-matter patents. “It’s very fine wording,” she said, stressing that the patents “are important but not needed to launch. We wanted to avoid any future disputes or conflicts with Mesoblast in the future.” https://www.bioworld.com/topics/84-bioworld
Surely we will now hear how the above is not relevant for reasons x, y and z, however, given the lack of specific patents cited that clearly outline any patent infringement by CYP that do not require any law proceedings to determine the level of infringement (if any), I'd take the above decision by the European Patents Office / Boards of Appeal as a sign of caution when it comes to these rather general MSC-specific patents, given the context of Articles 54, 56 and 83 in particular.
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)