Lawyers Aysel Korkmaz Yatkın

    Aysel Korkmaz Yatkın joined Gün + Partners in 2008 and became a partner in 2019. She specializes in intellectual property; insurance and reinsurance; dispute management and business crimes and anti-corruption practices with a special focus on patents and utility models.

    With almost 15 years of experience on patents, she has been providing consultancy on all matters related to patent law and has been leading numerous patent actions. With a vast advisory and litigation expertise particularly with regard to the protection of patent rights, Aysel Korkmaz Yatkın also represents various pharmaceutical companies before the Ministry of Health in relation to regulatory matters and gives support to these companies on regulatory matters during the audits conducted before the Ministry of Health.

    She supervises the team in relation to strategy and policy-setting issues, for comprehensive and complex mandates related to insurance disputes and negotiates the settlement assessment. She has been providing consultancy on all matters and has been leading numerous commercial disputes with vast advisory and litigation expertise, particularly with regard to compensation actions, unfair competition claims, preliminary injunctions, and enforcement of the preliminary injunctions. She has significant experience helping clients achieve positive outcomes across a variety of industries and sectors.

    Practice Areas & Work Department

    Intellectual Property

    Patent and Utility Models

    Insurance and Reinsurance

    Dispute Management

    Business Crimes and Anti-Corruption






    International Bar Association (IBA)

    Association Internationale pour la Protection de la Propriété Intellectuelle (AIPPI), Patents Committee

    Better Justice Association

    Unified Patent Court - How It Will Resonate in Turkey?

    The concept of the Unified Patent Court entered the lives of European Patent holders with the UPC Agreement, an international agreement dated February 19, 2013.
    Aysel Korkmaz Yatkın

    “Plausibility” in Turkish Patent Law and Its Impact on Invalidation Proceedings

    The concept of plausibility – which has been the subject of numerous evaluations, especially by the European Patent Office (“EPO”) and frequently debated in academic circles in recent years – has not yet found a place within the scope of any legal regulation in Turkey.
    Aysel Korkmaz Yatkın

    The Need for an Injunction in Cases Where the EPO Proceeding is held as a Pending Issue

    Although there is no explicit provision in Turkish Law for the acceptance of the ongoing opposition or appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office as a “pending issue” due to the principle of procedural economy, in practice, pending issue decisions may be given by the Civil Courts of Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights according to the particular circumstances.
    Aysel Korkmaz Yatkın

    Preliminary Injunction Decisions against Patent Trolls to Prevent the Enforcement of Patent Rights

    The patent and utility model rights, the backbone of incentivizing R&D and innovation, provide their holders with a significant advantage over their competitors and grant an absolute right for a certain period.
    Aysel Korkmaz Yatkın

    Current Practice of Bolar Exemption in Turkish Patent Law

    Article 85(3)/(c) of the Industrial Property Law No. 6769 regulates the Bolar Exemption, which stipulates the exclusion of experimental acts containing the invention subject to the patent from the scope of the patent right, including the licensing of pharmaceuticals and the necessary tests and experiments thereof.
    Aysel Korkmaz Yatkın

    Regional Court of Appeals: The Decision of the TMMDA of Refusal of the Applications of the Original Medicine Owners to Obtain Information on Reference Product is Unlawful

    As per article 9 of the Regulation on Authorization, which regulates “Abridged Application”, if a pharmaceutical has been authorized before, it is not necessary to repeat the tests and research, and the data of these tests doesn’t have to be submitted for authorizing again, …
    Aysel Korkmaz Yatkın

    Determination of Evidence in Disputes Over Pharmaceutical Patents

    The determination of evidence is a crucial interim legal protection measure in Turkish law that assists in proving the matter in question. In disputes relating to pharmaceutical patents, the determination of evidence is a prerequisite to benefit from a preliminary injunction. Under the Industrial Property Law No. 6769, judicial authorities can order immediate and effective interim measures to protect evidence related to an alleged infringement. However, access to information is limited for drug patent holders, making it difficult to obtain proof to prove preliminary injunction conditions have been met. Therefore, a court-ordered evidence determination decision is necessary for drug patent holders to benefit from the preliminary injunction institution.
    Aysel Korkmaz Yatkın

    Lack of Regulation on Plausibility Attacks in Turkish Patent Law

    The plausibility concept in patent law is not yet regulated in Turkish legislation, and there is no consensus on the Turkish word that corresponds to this legal term. However, plaintiffs have started to argue the requirement of plausibility in Turkish invalidity proceedings. The issue of plausibility is particularly important with regard to pharmaceutical patents, as all clinical studies' test data may not be obtained by the patent application's date. Therefore, it is still a subject of debate how much research should be included in the patent application and to what extent post-published evidence can be used. The EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal's G 2/21 decision may bring about important standards regarding plausibility, which will affect Turkish patent law.
    Aysel Korkmaz Yatkın

    The Danger of De Facto Abolishment of the Right to Preliminary Injunction by the Determination of Evidence in Terms of Pharmaceutical Patents

    Temporary legal protection in pharmaceutical patent disputes relies on evidence determination to prove a case. Drug patent holders must get a preliminary injunction to keep infringing products off the market because patent rights are limited. Without a court order, infringing drug information is difficult to obtain. Patent holders must establish evidence under Article 400 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 150/3 of the Industrial Property Law to obtain a preliminary injunction. Different court evidence determination methods can affect pharmaceutical patent disputes.
    Aysel Korkmaz Yatkın