On 24th November 2011 the Court of Justice of the European Union released its important decisions in the two cases Medeva (Case C-322/10) and Georgetown (Case C-422/10). Article 3(a) in the SPC regulation (Regulation No 469/2009 states that a prerequisite for granting an SPC, is that "the product is protected by a basic patent in force". "Product" shall be understood as active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) or a combination of APIs. According to the Medeva judgement, Article 3 (a) precludes the granting of an SPC "relating to active ingredients which are not specified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent relied on in support of the SPC application". Thus unless the patent claims specifies the combination of active ingredients, no SPC for a combination shall be granted. And if the claims specify the combination A+B, no certificate for A shall be granted based on that patent. As can be seen from the term "specified in the wording of the claims", the court does not use the infringement test for interpreting "protected by a basic patent" in article 3 (a). The infringement test has been used to a larger and larger extent by European national courts. What it takes for a product "to be specified in the wording of the claims" is likely to be the subject of future court cases. Also the fate of SPCs granted according to the infringement test is likely to end up in court after this decision from ECJ. In...
Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPC) For Combination Products. Ruling By ECJ November 24th 2011.
|Author:||Ms Inga Kaasen|
|Profession:||Advokatfirmaet Grette DA|
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL