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

Wednesday 3 March 2010

New note on DuPont application for losartan

A Current Intelligence note on EI Du Pont Nemours & Co. v United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office [2009] EWCA Civ 966, 17 September 2009, by Sebastian Moore and Jonathan Turnbull (Herbert Smith) and entitled "Paediatric extension applications: substance and timing" appears in the current issue of the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice (JIPLP). You can read this note in full on JIPLP's weblog here.

1 comment:

athurgood said...

So where does this leave the IPO in determining the extension of time to correct the application for paediatric extension ? Somewhere between a rock and a hard place ? After all, if I've understood correctly, the IPO must now weigh up the likelihood of the date at which the varied MA is to be granted in all of the existing MA authorities where the central MA route has not been chosen initially (and even with central MA, it must still rely on the projected date if not already obtained). Absent any delaying tactics by the applicant itself, and knowing the propensity for some authorities to drag things out, this could leave the application in limbo for years...which of course would be the complete opposite of the desired objective of the P.E. Directive. Catch 22 ?