On August 25, 2026, the Intellectual Property Court heard a cassation appeal in Case No. A40-181642/2023 concerning the alleged infringement of exclusive rights to an invention protected by Eurasian Patent No. 022283, arising from the introduction into civil circulation of the pharmaceutical product «Mirostedin Infecti». Earlier, the courts of first and appellate instances had upheld the claims of the patentholder, who found infringement of its exclusive rights in the actions of pharmacy chains that had offered for sale and sold the said product.
The claimant held exclusive rights to Eurasian Patent No. 022283, which protects a pharmaceutical composition comprising a combination of two and/or three compounds, one of which has long been known and is used as the active ingredient in the medicinal product «Miramistin». The client of the Patent & Law Firm A.Zalesov and Partners is a manufacturer of «Mirostedin Infecti», a reproduction of the long-established «Miramistin» containing a single active substance, with other substances present only at the level of permitted impurities.
Contending that the mere presence of all the compounds listed in the patent in «Mirostedin Infecti» confirms the fact of use of the invention, the claimant brought an action against the pharmacy chains seeking an injunction against putting «Mirostedin Infecti» into circulation. The manufacturer joined the case as a third party without independent claims.
During the proceedings, lawyers of A.Zalesov and Partners filed an opposition with Rospatent against the validity of Eurasian Patent No. 022283, arguing that the patent did not meet the patentability requirements. The opposition was dismissed, and Rospatent’s decision was subsequently upheld by the Intellectual Property Court. In the validity dispute, the Claimant took the opposite position, insisting that the patented composition contains two or three active ingredients, which distinguish it from the prior art.
Despite the arguments presented, the courts of first and appellate instances have not taken into account that the client’s product contains a single active ingredient, unlike the composition protected by the patent, and therefore no use of the invention had occurred. Likewise, the courts did not assess the arguments regarding the procedural inconsistency of the patentholder’s position in the validity proceedings as opposed to its position in the infringement dispute.
The team of A.Zalesov and Partners prepared and filed a cassation appeal with the Intellectual Property Court, forming a well-reasoned legal position on the incorrect determination of the scope of protection of the invention under the disputed patent and the inadmissibility of construing the scope of legal protection of a patent differently in each judicial proceeding. The cassation court found the arguments of the appeal well-founded, overturned the judicial acts of the lower courts, and remanded the case for a new trial.
The client was represented at all stages of the proceedings by Head of Intellectual Property Practice Alexey Zalesov and Senior Associate Yulia Kolomytseva.