Latest AHP analysis now in print

Volume 10, issue 5 of the Bio-Science Law Review, published six times a year by Lawtext Publishing, carries another article on SPCs. This is "SPC Entitlement: ECJ Rules in Favour of Drug Innovators in Interpreting the SPC Regulations for Medicinal and Plant Protection Products", by Klaas Bisschop and Kersti Schrijvers (both of Lovells, Amsterdam). According to the abstract,

"In an eagerly anticipated ruling, the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") finally made it clear that the European SPC Regulations for Medicinal products and Plant protection products aim to protect the interests of each holder of a different basic patent by enabling the grant of SPCs to each holder of a different basic patent. SPC applications do not need to be pending simultaneously. The article provides an overview of the relevant legal framework for SPC protection within Europe as well as giving inside in what role the underlying objectives of the European legal framework play when interpreting the law.

Through reviewing the case from a national and European perspective, this article describes the ruling by the ECJ and the interest the case holds for patent life management".

As this suggests, this is an analysis of the ruling in Case C -482/07 AHP Manufacturing BV v Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom (noted on The SPC Blog here). The 6-page piece concludes that the ruling's clear statement that the underlying objective of the SPC Regulations are more important for the grant of an SPC is "positive news" for the innovative pharmaceutical industry, providing the possibility of extending patent protection and improving the management of the life of a patent.