Life Sciences & Health Tech

Life Sciences & Health Tech

Pharmaceuticals and medical technology help improve the quality of life for an increasing number of people. Medical treatments, instruments and aids are becoming more and more necessary as the population ages. The current trend is towards personalised medicines and technologies that, while highly effective, are expensive to develop. At the same time, large buyers are monitoring their costs, and changes to the distribution system for medicines are being debated.

The pharmaceuticals industry and the distribution of pharmaceuticals are guided by strict rules covering everything from R&D to marketing. The regulation of medical technology is also approaching that of the pharmaceuticals industry. When health and safety are at stake, it is vital to operate irreproachably.

We help pharmaceutical and medical technology companies secure their rights. We handle patent litigation and trials relating to authority decisions with years of experience. We have solid expertise in marketing law, public procurement, and regulations pertaining to pharmacy.

We also assist companies and investors specialising in the medical, healthcare and health technology sectors with mergers and acquisitions, private equity and venture capital investments, financing and various industrial projects.

Our clients range from technology and growth companies, and pharmaceutical companies to healthcare providers. We also have a long track record of advising venture capital and private equity firms specialising in the healthcare and life sciences sector.

Latest references

Finnsusp – Sale of eyeglass lens business

We advised Oy Finnsusp Ab in the sale of its eyeglass lens business to IXI Optics Oy, subsidiary of a Finnish technology company IXI Eyewear. Finnsusp has been the only Finnish company manufacturing eyeglass lenses for over 35 years. Following the sale of its business, the company will focus on its international core business, specifically on the development and manufacturing of dry eye products and contact lens care solutions. Oy Finnsusp Ab (Piiloset) is a Finnish family-owned medical device manufacturer founded in 1978. In addition to Finland, the company’s products are sold in more than 35 countries in Europe, South and North America, the Middle East, and Africa. IXI Eyewear Oy is a Finnish technology startup that develops dynamic smart glasses based on liquid crystal technology.

KKR – Acquisition of Karo Healthcare

We acted as Finnish legal adviser to KKR in connection with its acquisition of the entire share capital of Karo Healthcare from EQT. The transaction follows Karo’s significant strategic transformation from a Nordic specialty pharma business into a leading pan-European consumer healthcare platform, with an attractive product portfolio spanning core categories such as Skin Health, Foot Health, and Intimate Health, as well as Digestive Health and Vitamins, Minerals & Supplements. KKR & Co. Inc. (NYSE: KKR), is a leading global investment firm that offers alternative asset management as well as capital markets and insurance solutions. KKR sponsors investment funds that invest in private equity, credit and real assets and has strategic partners that manage hedge funds. Completion of the transaction is subject to customary conditions and regulatory approvals. The transaction is expected to close in the coming months.

Trety – Dispute and settlement negotiations concerning a development and production agreement

We successfully represented Trety AB in a dispute and settlement negotiations concerning an agreement for development and production of communication devices for the healthcare sector. Eventually, the parties reached an amicable settlement to the full satisfaction of our client and thus the parties avoided an extensive arbitral proceeding. Trety AB is a global company that provides its customers with solutions for development, industrialization and production of electronics. Trety AB has over 30 years’ experience from IT, electronics and telecommunication industries.

Arctic Biomaterials – Patent litigation over bioactive biomaterials for orthopedic implants

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.

Latest insights

2.5.2024 – Private Equity Strong momentum in life sciences and health tech industry: Castrén & Snellman sees a significant uptick in deal-making

Karlo Siirala

Hanna Paloheimo

Sakari Lukinmaa

Tero Tuomisto

Antti Kaakkola

Karlo Siirala, Hanna Paloheimo, Sakari Lukinmaa, Tero Tuomisto & Antti Kaakkola

7.11.2025 Stricter penalties under new sanctions violation regulation – corporate fines of up to EUR 40 million

Eveliina Tammela

Janina Ketola

Touko Hakahuhta

Eveliina Tammela, Janina Ketola & Touko Hakahuhta

7.11.2025 – Capital Markets & Public M&A AIFMD II – implications for alternative investment fund managers in Finland

Hannu Huotilainen

Freja Väyrynen

Hannu Huotilainen & Freja Väyrynen

17.10.2025 – Intellectual Property Is your IP safe? Eight real-life tips to avoid costly mistakes

Lauri Laatunen

Janne Koivisto

Lauri Laatunen & Janne Koivisto

Search from the site.