Someone post an example of when a country of origin patent was invalidated and its foreign counterpart remained valid. When I see that I will believe a lot of the hype about Germany that is being posted on this board.

During the Lipitor litigation in Europe...

US Court of Appeal invalidates Lipitor patent due to improper claim dependency

(Pfizer Inc. v Ranbaxy Laboratories CAFC 06-1179 (2006))

Pfizer filed a lawsuit to block Ranbaxy's challenge of both patents. The innovator company originally won its case in a Delaware federal court. But in December 2006 an appeals court found that the so-called 995 enantiomer patent had a technical defect in that one claim Within it contained an improper cross-reference to another claim in the patent.

The 995 enantiomer patent, asserts Pfizer, is specifically focused on the molecule that serves as the most active ingredient in the drug. An enantiomer is described as a structural mirror image, or one of the two forms of a protein or other molecule. Although many medications are said to include both versions, Lipitor reportedly is a "handed" version with a molecule attached in such a way that it is extremely stable and active. The patent covers that specific structure.

In January 2007, a month after the appeals court announced its decision, Pfizer asked the patent office for permission to correct the defect by removing the cross-reference and having the patent reissued. The patent office agreed, contingent on Pfizer paying a fee of about $1,500.

Lipitor patent is reissued

Chain Drug Review , Feb 2, 2009

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...

The decision from Europe predated the USPTO decision and therefore the European patent remained valid while it was invalidated in the US.

The most active challenger to Pfizer's '893 and '995 patents and their counterparts on a worldwide basis is Ranbaxy, an India based generic player. Ranbaxy is not flinching despite reports that the European Patent Office (EPO) issued an opinion upholding, in its entirety, Pfizer's patent for atorvastatin calcium salt (Lipitor). The opinion was provided at the request of a Spanish court that heard a patent infringement suit filed by generic manufacturer Ranbaxy against Pfizer. The EPO rejected arguments by Ranbaxy that a patent covering atorvastatin calcium, the active ingredient in Lipitor, is invalid for "lack of novelty" and "lack of inventive step."

http://www.ipfrontline.com/depts/art...

Apologies for not fully explaining the reason for posting the Lipitor example.

A further point, the German patent essentially covers the MMP Portfolio so I would argue that it is substantially different from the separate patents granted by the USPTO, the sum being significantly greater than the parts.

The country of origin for patent DE 6,903,356 8T2 is Germany and was granted/reconfirmed using their criteria.

Be well