The SPC blog
A niche blog dedicated to the issues that arise when supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) extend patents beyond their normal life -- and to the respective positions of patent owners, investors, competitors and consumers. The blog also addresses wider issues that may be of interest or use to those involved in the extension of patent rights. You can email The SPC Blog here
Friday, 19 September 2014
Paul incidentally furnished a note for this blog on the Advocate General's Opinion in this case which was not initially published in English. The SPC Blog's note on the ruling can be found here.
Wednesday, 10 September 2014
The seminar, held on Thursday 6 November 2014, runs from 1.30 pm until 6 pm. It will address the following topics:
• Review and analysis of pending CJEU referrals and recent CJEU decisions - Robert Stephen, Olswang LLPThere will be plenty of time for questions and a drink afterwards.
• “What’s up?” from the perspective of the IPOs - Various international IPO representatives
• SPCs involving medical devices - Charlotte Teale, Forresters
• SPCs for biologics - Mike Snodin, ParkGrove IP
• Amending and attacking SPCs – Dorothea von Renesse, König Szynka Tilmann von Renesse
• ‘Quick updates’ - notification dates and more…
Do join us once again! You are very welcome.
Tuesday, 9 September 2014
Alice adds that it also notes discrepancies in SPC protection in European countries which are due to differences in interpretation of the EC Regulation and/or in policy as between national patent offices.
Thanks, Alice! Your efforts are much appreciated.
Monday, 8 September 2014
In this article, Mike discusses the decision of the CJEU in Case C-555/13 Merck Canada. While acknowledging the effect that the ruling has in curtailing the term of Portuguese SPCs based upon certain "old law" patents, he argues that the ruling ought to also provide some beneficial side-effects, in the form of:
(a) increased harmonisation of SPC expiry dates across the EU andThe SPCs that may be affected are those for which less than 10 years have elapsed between the filing date of patent upon which the SPC is based and the date of the first authorisation in the European Economic Area for the “product” defined in respect of the SPC.
(b) an additional day's term for some SPCs in certain countries (such as the UK).
In the Genzyme case that Mike argued before the UK IPO in 2013 (BL O/418/13), the Hearing Officer declined a request (based upon the provisions of the Euratom treaty) to award an additional day’s term to just such an SPC. However, Mike is of the view that the ruling in C-555/13 would appear to undermine the Hearing Officer’s reasons for refusing that request. Therefore, Mike’s Euratom argument may yet rise again!
Friday, 5 September 2014
I have only found four decisions so far matching that criteria (Bundespatentgericht Yttrium-90 glass microspheres, Bundespatentgericht Hylan A and Hylan B, UKIPO Cerus, UKIPO Leibnitz).If you have any suggestions, particularly regarding very recent decisions that might not yet have reached The SPC Blog, do please let him -- and us -- know.
Are you aware of any other decision helpful on that matter?"
Wednesday, 20 August 2014
EFTA COURTThis request was received from the Oslo District Court on 23 July. The deadline for written observations from Governments and relevant institutions is Monday, 13 October 2014.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 16 June 2014 in the case of Pharmaq AS v Intervet International BV (Case E-16/14)
1. Concerning Article 2 of the SPC Regulation, has a product been placed on the market as a medicinal product in the EEA before it has been granted marketing authorisation in accordance with the procedure for administrative authorisation laid down in Directive 81/851/EEC (or Directive 2001/82 EEC) when delivery of the product has taken place in accordance with
(i) “special approval exemptions” granted by the State Medicines Agency to veterinarians and fish health biologists pursuant to Section 3-6 or 3-7 of the Norwegian Regulation of 22 December 1999, alternatively Sections 2-6 or 2-7 of the Norwegian Regulation of 18 December 2009, or2. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is such a product outside the scope of the SPC Regulation and is an SPC granted on the basis of such a product therefore invalid?
(ii) what are known as “AR 16 licences” granted by the Irish Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine pursuant to the Irish Statutory Instrument No 144/2007 European Communities (Animal Remedies) Regulations 2007 part III “Exceptional authorisation”, point 16?
3. Concerning the interpretation of Article 2 of the SPC Regulation, should a marketing authorisation granted for a veterinary medicinal product pursuant to Article 26(3) of Directive 2001/82 be deemed to constitute an administrative authorisation pursuant to Directive 81/851 (or Directive 2001/82) within the meaning of Article 2?
4. (a) Do special approval exemptions pursuant to Section 3-6 or 3-7 of the Norwegian Medicines Regulations of 1999 (FOR-199-12-22-1559) or Section 2-6 or 2-7 of the Norwegian Medicines Regulations of 2009 (FOR-2009-12-18-1839) constitute valid authorisation to place the product on the market as a medicinal product within the meaning of Article 3(b)?
5. When the medicinal product is a virus vaccine, can the scope of protection under the SPC cover not only the specific strain of the virus that is included in the medicinal product and covered by the basic patent, but also other strains of the virus that are covered by the basic patent?
In answering this question, is it of significance whether
a) such other strains have an equivalent therapeutic effect to the virus strain included in the medicinal product or whether the therapeutic effect is not immediately equivalent?6. If an SPC has been granted with a product definition that is not strictly limited to the specific strain of the virus authorised to be placed on the market as a medicinal product,
b) a medicinal product based on such other strain will have to be the subject of a separate marketing authorisation with requirements for documentation of safety and effect?
a) will such an SPC be valid, or
b) will the SPC be valid; such, however, that the scope of protection pursuant to Article 4 does not extend beyond the specific virus strain authorised to be placed on the market as a medicinal product?
Directive 2001/82 [on the Community Code Relating to Veterinary Medicinal Products] or Directive 2001/83 [on the Community Code Relating to Medicinal Products for Human Use], granted for many consecutive years, constitute a de facto marketing authorisation, thereby disqualifying the product in question from applying for a SPC?
If you happen to have information on this topic, I would greatly appreciate it if you could share it with me".Well, readers -- this is your chance! Do please post any useful reading suggestions below and let's see what we can come up with.
Monday, 18 August 2014
The post is quite long and a bit complex, so we thank Michael for getting this case online while packing for his holiday. That's enthusiasm for you!
Friday, 8 August 2014
The 45 page ruling can be read in its entirety here.
Thursday, 7 August 2014
"I would like to report a recent case before the Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria regarding an SPC application for Atripla, a drug for treatment of HIV infection.
“a combination of a compound of Formula I or Formula II according to claim 2 with a nucleoside analog having biological activity against HIV reverse transcriptase”.
Although efavirenz was found to be a compound of Formula I and emtizitabine -- a nucleoside analogue -- the court held that the claim envisaged only combinations of two active ingredients, while the applied product consisted of three. Further, the court confirmed that the third ingredient, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, was also outside the scope of the claim as it was a nucleotide rather than a nucleoside analogue. Although after its intake it was transformed in the human body into a nucleoside, at the time of composing the claimed product it lacked such characteristics. As a result the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of first instance and instead upheld the decision of the Patent Office to reject the application of Merck Sharp & Dohme Inc.If you can cope with the original Bulgarian text of the judgment, Dimitar has kindly provided a link to it here.
In its detailed analysis the Supreme Court touched on a number of important topics of the SPC domain. It provided guidance on the methods of interpretation of patent claims, on the applicability of the infringement test and the significance of the Medeva and Eli Lilly decisions. It also commented on decisions of other jurisdictions which had been put forward by the parties in support of their arguments. Therefore, in my opinion the Atripla case resulted in a milestone decision of the Bulgarian case law with respect to the application of the SPC Regulation.