We successfully represented Arctic Biomaterials Oy before the Finnish Market Court in an extensive dispute concerning alleged patent infringement and invalidity of the patent-in-suit.
Our client has invented next-generation bioabsorbable composites that are engineered with Arctic Biomaterials’ X3 bioactive natural mineral fibers, offering robust, bioactive reinforcement for orthopedic implants. These advanced composites empower customers to create high-strength bioabsorbable solutions for the most demanding applications.
Back in 2019, Purac Biochem B.V. alleged, among other things, that our client’s Evolvecomp product had infringed Purac Biochem B.V.’s European patent validated in Finland protecting a biocompatible composite and its use. Purac Biochem B.V. filed a preliminary injunction against our client under the Act on Securing the Provision of Evidence in Civil Cases Concerning Industrial Property Rights and Copyright (344/2000). The Finnish Market Court issued an ex-parte injunction against our client on 2 April 2019 (MAO:150/19) and a final injunction on 19 February 2020 (MAO:59/20).
Our client had disputed Purac Biochem B.V.’s patent infringement claim from the beginning and claimed that the patent-in-suit was invalid. After five years of litigation, the Finnish Market Court handed down a ruling in the joined invalidity and infringement cases on 10 October 2024 (MAO:560/2024 and MAO:561/2024) declaring Purac Biochem B.V.’s patent invalid and dismissing Purac’s infringement action against Arctic Biomaterials. Also, the preliminary injunction based on an alleged patent infringement imposed against Arctic Biomaterials was cancelled.
The Market Court declared Purac Biochem B.V.’s patent invalid due to a lack of inventive step. The Market Court applied the could-would method for determining whether the patent-in-suit is inventive or not. The could-would method is based on determining whether a person skilled in the art would (not simply could, but would) have made a specific improvement to prior solutions, based on the available prior art. The Market Court ruled that it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to solve the objective technical problem of the patent-in-suit in the manner presented in claim 1, using as a starting point the closest prior art (prior patent publication) and combining it with the teaching of another prior art publication. The decision is final.
