“May Article 13 of Regulation 469/2009 be interpreted as permitting, by means of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, the period for exclusive exploitation of the patented invention to be more than fifteen years from the date of the first authorization to place the medicinal product in question on the market within the Community (not including the extension provided for in Article 13(3) of that regulation)?".Last Thursday, 13 February, the CJEU apparently ruled as follows, according to Baptista, Monteverde & Associados:
“Article 13 of Regulation 469/2009 ..., read in conjunction with recital 9 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that it opposes that the holder of a patent and of a supplementary protection certificate may invoke the whole duration of the said certificate, applying Article 13 in a situation where, due to the said duration, the said holder would benefit from a period of exclusive exploitation of an active ingredient of more than fifteen years from the date of the first marketing authorization within the Community, of the medicinal product consisting of the said active ingredient or containing it.”This by no means clears up the mystery of this case. Can anyone explain the following?
First, if you look at the Curia diary for 13 February, you will find lots of cases that received the attention of the CJEU -- but Case C-555/13 is not among those listed.
Secondly, if you conduct a case search for Case C-555/13 you will find it marked "Case in Progress", there being no sign of a judgment.
Thirdly, the case -- according to Curia -- was only filed in October of last year, and notice of it having been filed was published in the Official Journal this January.
Is it possible for a reference to reach a ruling in just a few short winter months, with no apparent hearing? Can anyone explain what has happened?