United States: IP Fridays – Episode 37: Interview With Juergen Dressel, Head Of Global Patent Litigation Strategy At Novartis Pharma – Legal Implications Of Drones – EPO Threatens Staff Union Leader

Last Updated: September 28 2015
Article by Rolf Claessen and Kenneth Suzan

Hi!  My name is Juergen Dressel and I am the Head of Global Patent Litigation Strategy at Novartis Pharma AG in Basel, Switzerland and here I am speaking on a podcast for IP Fridays.

 

KS:      Hello and welcome to this episode of IP Fridays.  Our names are Ken Suzan and Rolf Claessen and this is THE podcast dedicated to Intellectual Property.  It does not matter where you are from, in-house or private practice, novice or expert, we will help you stay up-to-date with current topics in the fields of trademarks, patents, design and copyright, discover useful tools and much more.

 

RC:      Welcome to Episode 37 of IP Fridays.  Today we have an interview with Juergen Dressel who is head of Global Patent Litigation Strategy at Novartis Pharma, Tricia Volpe of Barnes & Thornburg LLP tells us about the latest developments in the field of drones, and then we also have the very latest on the conflict between the Staff Union and the President at the European Patent Office.

 

This Monday, September 14, 2015, an important IT magazine, IX, had an article about the European Patent Office threatening the leader of the Staff Union of the European Patent Office in Munich.  Supposedly she was summoned to the Investigative Unit that was established by the President of the European Patent Office and this summons to the hearing before the Investigative Unit was somehow leaked into the public so now the European Patent Office is threatening the leader of the Munich Staff Union to fire her and threatening other legal steps for disclosing confidential information about the summons to the hearing before the Investigative Unit.  If you want to read the full story, unfortunately it is in German, you can head over to www.ipfridays.com/staffunion.

 

Now. Trisha Volpe of Barnes & Thornburg LLP has the latest about the legal implication of drones.  Take it away....

 

TV:      Technology once reserved for the military has the potential for exponential commercial growth. But drone technology has become a kind of technological intersection of debate – where intellectual property, economic impact, issues surrounding security and privacy meet.

 

Earlier this month members of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet examined the policy and legal implications of commercial drones.

 

We've seen their use expand already – and in some cases, attract headlines.  Recently, a drone crashed on the White House lawn.  Another crashed into the stands at the U.S. Open.  Amazon has proposed delivering packages by drone.  The potential seems limitless.

 

Currently, the FAA has in place temporary guidelines and grants permission to use drones for commercial purposes on a case by case basis – requiring users to apply for an exemption called the Section 333 Exemption.

 

Chris Polychron, President of the National Association of Realtors told subcommittee members the real estate industry represents a good portion of those exemptions...urging lawmakers to support the expanded use of commercial drones.

 

Chris Polychron:  "The potential applications for UASs in real estate are plentiful and will grow.  Currently UASs can provide the opportunity for real estate practitioners to offer photographs and videos of properties that would otherwise be difficult to obtain.  Using UAS technology to do the same thing is typically less expensive, less time-consuming and less dangerous for everyone involved.  As UAS technology progresses, the type of applications will grow as well."

 

Supporters also point to potential uses in the insurance and energy industries, news, sports and film industries – and even for delivering emergency supplies to dangerous places.

 

However, those concerned about safety and the potential impact to civil liberties urge a more cautious approach.

 

In the air – concerned about sharing airspace and the potential for collisions, the Airline Pilots Association, the main union representing U.S. and Canadian pilots, have called for a go-slow approach to permitting wider use of unmanned aircraft systems.

 

And from the ground – civil liberties advocates want tighter controls as well.

 

Chris Calabrese testified at the subcommittee hearing on behalf of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

 

Chris Calabrese: "There are three key realities that should drive congressional action around drones.  The first is that unmanned aircraft systems are a promising technology that have the potential to erode civil liberties through pervasive surveillance.  The second is that current laws do not provide strong privacy protections from government or private unmanned aircraft invasions.  This lack of privacy protection undermines public trust in drone technology which holds back the industry."

 

Calabrese also asked lawmakers and the drone industry to address civil liberties through legislation and an industry code of conduct.

 

A tough balancing act for lawmakers and federal regulators – as an important deadline approaches to integrate drones into the national airspace.

 

The FAA has proposed a framework of regulations to allow routine use of some small drones under 55 pounds, a proposal that would, among other things, limit flights to daylight and include height restrictions and operational limits.  But it's not clear yet when and if the proposal will become a mandate.

 

Reporting for IP Fridays, I'm Trisha Volpe.

 

RC:      Thank you Trisha.  Now, we have the interview with Juergen Dressel, Head of Global Patent Litigation Strategy at Novartis Pharma, a major player in the pharmaceutical industry.  He has been in the pharmaceutical industry for the past 32 years and he has worked for the generics but now he has joined the originator side and is in his current or a similar position for the last nine years.  Thank you for being on the show Juergen.

 

JD:       Ah, my pleasure.

 

RC:      So it seems that the UPC will be established and the Unified European Patent will be established so do you think the pharma industry, and in particular Novartis, will use the new European Patent with Unitary Effect?

 

JD:       Absolutely.  There is no way of actually avoiding using this patent.  I think it is a logical consequence of the European Union and it reflects the globalization with the big economic blocks which we experience like the United States and China and we obviously have to remember the market of .5 billion people in the European Union.  I also think it is a logical consequence of the European Patent Convention which was responsible for granting the patents.  Of course, it's intimately linked to the Unified Patents Court so you cannot imagine the European Patent with the Unitary Effect without the Unified Patents Court and, as you know, patents are extremely important for the pharmaceutical industry when you look at our huge research and development efforts with very, very long development times for the drugs and also very high expenses.

 

RC:      So you say you will embrace the Unitary Effect of the European Patent.  What do you think could be the drawbacks of the new system?

 

JD:       I think the current drawbacks, and I hope it is only a teething problem, is that important countries will not play along.  Spain, Italy and Poland are currently not included and that will, of course, add substantial translation costs because under the current system, the European Bundle Patent, when we use only a selection of those for maybe not so important inventions, we will still at least include Spain and Italy so we will have the translation costs into Spanish and Italian.  I hope this will eventually change and that they will join over time.

 

RC:      It seems that Italy just took the first steps to join the system, right?

 

JD:       Yes.  Exactly.

 

RC:      But Spain is still hesitant.  You have a really long experience in patent litigation on both sides; generics and originators.  How do you think that the Unified Patent Court will change the litigation strategy of Novartis as an originator?

 

JD:       It is certainly an additional tool which we have in addition to the national litigation that we currently have so it will be good to try it out.  We obviously don't want to stand by at the sidelines.  We want to play an important role when it comes to actually shaping this European Patent and especially the UPC but we will need to decide on a case-by-case basis which patents we, in the end, will opt out and which ones we will leave in the system because of the risks that are associated here with such a transition period.  We know very, very little how this is actually going to work.  As I emphasized earlier, these patents are so extremely important for our industry.  You can't imagine what our business would say if we had to tell them that we made the wrong decision by leaving the patent in this system, although we haven't really tried it out, and one of our crown jewels goes down the drain.

 

RC:      So you are saying that you will actually have a parallel system?  You will try to have national patents as well as the unified patents?

 

JD:       We will.  Probably not for the same patents or though even that you could imagine for some with provisionals.  Where there are similar patents, one could be in the system and one could be __________________ as a matter of principle.  But I guess rather we will distinguish according to the importance of the patent.

 

RC:      Right.  I mean, the major advantage for many people seen in the reduced costs so if you are saying you will have in parallel the Unified Patent as well as National patents, probably you will only have National Patents in the most important markets in the future?  Like you probably won't have National Patents in Romania anymore?  Or will you also have National Patents in Romania and parallel to the Unified Patent?

 

JD:       Costs are not such a huge factor in our industry; at least not for the patent.  So usually when we have a patent that covers a commercial aspect of a drug, yet the active ingredient or formulation or something like that, then we usually validate it at least in the traditional European Patent in each and every country of the European Dominium and so usually we only have defensive patents with the smaller countries.

 

RC:      I see.  So currently there are a lot of judges training already for the new Unified Patent Court.  Are you afraid of judges with little or no experience in patent cases dealing with the invalidity of EU-wide patents?

 

JD:       Yes.  Of course we are afraid of that and that is, again, due to the lack of experience we have until now.  I think the people who are responsible for selecting the judges and also for setting up the whole system try to mitigate this issue.  You are probably familiar with the system UPC and you know that the local division with less experience they will actually have two judges from the experienced patent judges pool.  What I am a little bit worried about is the same provision does not seem to exist for the regional division, so that could be an issue.  In the central division, of course, we would expect experienced judges.  Again, a lot will depend on whether you are actually able to attract one of those experienced judges.  What I am hearing until now is that all the well-known judges want to join, they want to play a role, but I guess it will heavily depend on the details which still need to be hammered out.  Some of those details are, for example, salaries, which some countries are quite hesitant to give a decent salary to these judges.  When you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

 

RC:      That's true, and also there is a big difference in the number of cases in the countries.  Let's say we have around 2,000 patent litigation cases in Europe each year and 1,200 are in Germany and only 50 in the UK and there are actually 14 countries I think where there is actually basically no patent litigation going on at all.  From these countries there will also be judges recruited to the UPC.

 

JD:       Certainly.  Again, they are trying to actually bring those judges on board.  You know a training center in Budapest and there is actually training already ongoing at this point in time in Germany, the U.K. and probably the Netherlands where you do have the bulk of the pharmaceutical patent litigation so I do hope that these judges from the other countries will be very bright people that just lack experience and so I am optimistic that eventually it will work out but it will also have its teething problems and, of course, you don't want to have your most important case in such a transition period.  This is something that any reasonable person will be afraid of.

 

RC:      Right.  I am also optimistic actually that it will take some time but the judges who have currently no or little experience will quickly pick up I guess.

 

JD:       So let's keep our fingers crossed.

 

RC:      Right.  So how do you think the generics will react to the new system?

 

JD:       I can only speculate how that is going to work but I think similarly to us the generics which in the meantime, especially the big generics, have become very, very sophisticated in pharmaceutical patent litigation.  They will also consider the system as an additional tool.  Also, they will play on it like on the keyboard of a piano and they will use this tool in order to eliminate a patent threat on the European level.  For example, by invalidation or by declaration of non-infringement and they can clear the way across the whole of the European Union but at the same time you still have other tools like the EPO where you also can clear the way so I think it will add to the repertoire of possibilities for generics.

 

RC:      Do you think the new system favors the generics or favors the originators?

 

JD:       That is a very, very difficult question to answer, especially in the absence of any experience.  Of course, the human factor will play a role but I guess your question is more aimed at when you look at the rules is that actually more pro-generic or pro-originator.  I think all in all it is a relatively balanced system.  Also, I am not absolutely concerned as an originator.  I think in the end the proof comes with the eating of the pudding so we will have to see how these different regulations and rules will work out.  But I think all in all the people who are responsible for the system have done a pretty good job in order to achieve a balanced system.

 

RC:      The EPO just released the annual fees for the European Patent with Unitary Effect.  Are you happy with the fees?

 

JD:       I think it is far too high.  I told you before that this is not our biggest concern, the fees, but I think in general an opportunity has been lost here for political reasons.  I guess a compromise had to be made in order to keep the National Patent Offices happy but I think in the end, at least in the long run, this whole system should become a really, really cheap system similar to the _____________ system.  So I don't think they have actually realized the savings potential, at least a theoretical one.

 

RC:      Yes.  You said that the pharmaceutical industry will probably not care too much but I am sure there are many industries, especially in the medium-sized companies, who will care about the cost and they might hesitate to use this system.

 

JD:       I think so too.  That will be an issue.  I think it is not clear yet whether they want to take the top three or the top four countries but when it comes to the fees at least for the European Patent with Unitary Effect but keep in mind that you can still have countries like Spain and Poland that are very important markets and at least at this point in time still need ___________ which will still require translation costs so translation costs are one big part of the bill in the end.

 

RC:      That was very interesting to hear your perspective.  If people want to learn more about you, where can they reach you?

 

JD:       They can reach me under my e-mail address which is Juergen.Dressel@Novartis.com.

 

RC:      Thank you very much for being on the show.

 

JD:       My pleasure again Rolf.

 

KS:      That's it for this episode.  If you liked what you heard, please show us your love by visiting http://ipfridays.com/love and tweet a link to this show.  We would be so grateful if you would do that.  It would help us out to get the word out.  Also, please subscribe to our podcast at ipfridays.com  or on iTunes or Stitcher.com.  If you have a question or want to be featured in one of the upcoming episodes, please send us your feedback at http://ipfridays.com/feedback.  Also, please leave us a review on iTunes.  You can go to http://ipfridays.com/itunes and it will take you right to the correct page on iTunes.  If you want to get mentioned on this podcast or even have comments within the next episode, please leave us your voicemail at http://ipfridays.com/voicemail.

You have been listening to an episode of IP Fridays.  The views expressed by the participants of this program are their own and do not represent the views of nor are they endorsed by their respective law firms.  None of the content should be considered legal advice.  The IP Fridays podcast should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances.  The contents of this podcast are intended for general informational purposes only and you are urged to consult your own lawyer on any specific legal questions.  As always, consult a lawyer or patent or trademark attorney.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions