The use of a patented technical solution for research or experimental purposes does not, in itself, constitute an infringement of intellectual property rights. However, such a qualification applies only where the party using the invention can properly substantiate the scientific nature of such use. In the absence of such evidence, the patent holder is entitled to seek cessation of the use and to apply other remedies provided by law.
This conclusion was reached by the Commercial Cassation Court within the Supreme Court in its ruling of 5 March 2026.
The dispute concerned an invention relating to substituted oxazolidinones and their use for preventing blood coagulation. The patent owner filed a claim seeking to prohibit the defendant from using the invention without authorization, as well as to seize and destroy 9 kg of the imported pharmaceutical substance “Rivaroxaban”.
Initially, the courts dismissed the claim. However, the Supreme Court set aside those decisions and remitted the case for a new trial. The cassation court emphasized the need to verify the defendant’s arguments regarding the alleged scientific or experimental use of the substance. In particular, it was necessary to assess whether the defendant had appropriate research infrastructure, qualified personnel, proper research conditions, and whether the quantity of the substance corresponded to the stated research purpose.
Following the retrial, the court of first instance, upheld by the appellate court, partially satisfied the claim. The courts ordered the seizure and destruction of the pharmaceutical substance but refused to impose a prohibition on the use of the invention, considering such remedy inappropriate. At the same time, they found that the defendant had failed to prove the scientific nature of the use, yet deemed a blanket prohibition unjustified.
The Commercial Cassation Court disagreed with this approach. It confirmed that the defendant had not provided sufficient evidence of genuine scientific activity, including the absence of proof of qualified specialists, research facilities, and actual experiments. Moreover, the quantity of the imported substance significantly exceeded what could be justified for research purposes. The filing of applications for the registration of medicinal products containing the same active substance was also taken into account, indicating a commercial nature of use.
At the same time, the Supreme Court held that a claim for prohibition of the use of the invention constitutes an appropriate remedy for the protection of patent rights. Such prohibition directly derives from the exclusive rights of the patent holder and applies within the term of patent protection; therefore, it cannot be regarded as indefinite or excessive.
As a result of the cassation review, the court partially upheld the claimant’s appeal: the decisions of the lower courts were set aside insofar as they refused to prohibit the use of the invention, and a new decision was adopted granting that part of the claim. The defendant’s cassation appeal against the satisfied claims was dismissed.