Finnish Supreme Court reinstates apixaban patent and aligns priority entitlement with EPC

Recent work|January 26, 2026

The Supreme Court reinstates the apixaban patent and returns the case to the Market Court, ruling that interpretations of the Finnish Patents Act shall be in line with the EPC and that the strong presumption of entitlement to priority also applies under Finnish law.

On 17 December 2025, the Supreme Court rendered a precedential judgment (KKO 2025:107), which establishes that a strong presumption of entitlement to priority shall be applied when a patent applicant has claimed priority in accordance with Art. 88(1) EPC. This legal guidance thus aligns Finnish practice with the legal guidance of the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal in G 1/22 and G 2/22.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company (“BMS“) is the proprietor of Finnish Supplementary Protection Certificate No. 443 (“SPC“), which was granted based upon FI/EP 1 427 415 (“basic patent“) and the marketing authorization for the medicinal product, Eliquis®. The SPC covers the compound apixaban, which is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor used for the treatment of thromboembolic disorders. Apixaban is the active ingredient of the pharmaceutical product Eliquis®.

Teva B.V. and Teva Finland Oy (“Teva“) initiated an invalidation action before the Market Court claiming the invalidity of the SPC by asserting the invalidity of the basic patent. Teva argued that the basic patent should be declared invalid for an alleged lack of novelty and inventive step as well as insufficiency of disclosure. The Market Court ruled in a majority decision that the basic patent was invalid due to lack of novelty. The novelty attack was based on an allegation of lack of entitlement to priority based on the argument that BMS Company was not entitled to claim priority from US provisional application 60/324,165 (“US’165“) when it applied for the basic patent at the EPO. The majority of the Market Court (contrary to most other EU courts) found that the legal guidance in G 1/22 and G 2/22 should not apply in a Finnish invalidation action and ruled the basic patent invalid.

BMS appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. On 17 December 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that the strong presumption of entitlement to priority established in G 1/22 and G 2/22 applies also under Finnish law. In particular, the Supreme Court noted that the interpretation of the Patents Act (550/1967, as amended) should be aligned with the EPC to ensure legal certainty. The Supreme Court considered that the basic purpose of priority is to protect the interests of patent applicants in obtaining international protection for their inventions for a limited period of time, thereby mitigating the adverse consequences of the territoriality of patents.

The Supreme Court ruled that Finnish law and thus the Finnish rules on the burden of proof under Chapter 17 of the Procedural Code apply. These rules are flexible and can accommodate the allocation of the burden of proof, as well as the standard of proof, established in G 1/22 and G 2/22. Thus, a party relying on an alleged lack of entitlement to priority bears the burden of proof. The presumption of entitlement to priority is rebuttable only in exceptional circumstances (e.g. bad faith). The same issue has been litigated in several European countries in relation to the generic entry of apixaban and the same approach has been adopted in several other European jurisdictions.

The patent in suit is thus reinstated and the invalidation action was remitted to the Market Court where the proceedings will continue. BMS is represented by Roschier.