According to sources, the company's drug contained the same active substance as a patented drug for ADHD treatment, but in a different salt form than specified in the patent claims. The company's drug has been considered to infringe the patent through equivalence interpretation. The negative declaratory action brought by the company has therefore been dismissed.
The case has tested, among other things, the question of the possibility of equivalence interpretation when patent claims have been amended due to lack of support in the original documents. The Patent and Market Court of Appeal has allowed the judgment to be appealed to the Supreme Court. The names of the company, the patented ADHD drug, and its manufacturer have not been disclosed.
The specific salt forms involved in the case remain unknown. The Supreme Court's decision could potentially impact the pharmaceutical market or patent law, but its exact effects are not yet clear.