After the recent batch of SPC rulings, where are we?

The SPC Blog thanks Tjibbe Douma (De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek N.V.) for drawing its attention to a neat explanatory diagram which appeared in that firm's Legal Alert of December 2011 and which represents, in schematic form, the position which follows the recent batch of Court of Justice rulings and orders that has clarified the status of SPCs relating to product-by-process claims and combination products.

Summary of the present situation for easy reference: what do the decisions mean in practice

CASE	Basic Patent Claims:	MA in place for:	SPC
Medeva	Combination A+B	A +B +C+D multi-disease vaccine	A+B
Yeda	Combination A+B	A (+C)	No SPC possible
Queensland Several basic patents	1.     A+B 2.     C 3.     D	A+B+C+D	1.     A+B (based on patent 1) 2.     C (based on patent 2) 3.     D (based on patent 3)
Queensland Product through process	A claimed in the wording as (in)direct product of the process claim	A (+B + C)	A
Queensland a contrario Product through process	A product of process but A not specified in the wording of the claim	A (+B + C)	No SPC possible
Daiichi	A	A+B combination therapy	A

Details of these cases can be found on The SPC Blog and/or on the De Brauw website's Legal Alerts and Newsletters (here).