Pharmaq AS v Intervet International BV

Of immediate relevance to the blogpost that appeared earlier this afternoon is this announcement from the EFTA Court (reproduced in full below):

EFTA COURT

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)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 17 July 2014 from Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 23 July 2014, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Pharmaq AS v Intervet International BV, on the following questions:

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, or

(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?

2. 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?

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)?

(b) 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 a first authorisation to place the product on the market as a medicinal product in Norway within the meaning of Article 3(d)?

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?

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?

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,

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?

This 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.

Special approval exemptions in a nutshell: a request for help

This blog has recently received a request for assistance from an enthusiastic young student who writes:

"I am doing research concerning SPCs and, in particular, on the implications of special approval exemptions for medicine (to be sold on the market, at the request of a doctor/vet, prior to marketing authorisation) for SPC applications. In a nutshell, I am looking for case law and articles that may have touched on this issue: does a special approval exemption under 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.

Patent term extension in Israel: a recent ruling

It's always good to keep an eye on other weblogs, since they do feature patent term extension news from time to time. One such blog is Michael Factor's IP Factor blog, which has just posted a piece, "Israel Patent Number 94634, Extending and Shortening Patent Term Extensions", here, on The Association of Israeli Pharmacists v Sir Roy Calne and Wyeth, Ruling Asa Kling 13, July 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!

Medical Devices Directive authorisation no good for SPC

In Leibniz-Institut für Neue Materialien Gemeinnützige GmbH, BL O/328/14, a UK Intellectual Property Office decision of 29 July, hearing officer Lawrence Cullen held that a medical device, the marketing authorisation for which was governed by Directive 93/42 -- the Medical Devices Directive -- was not a basis for granting an application for an SPC under Regulation 469/2009 in respect of the “aqueous dispersion of iron oxide nanoparticles” . According to the Institute the authorisation procedure under the Medical Devices Directive was the equivalent of an authorisation to place the product on the market as a medicinal product, granted under the administrative procedure laid down in Directive 2001/83 (the Medicinal Products Directive). Following a careful examination of all the relevant legislation and case law, the hearing officer held that a product which had not been subject to the administrative procedure in the Medicinal Products Directive is actually excluded by Article 2 of the SPC Regulation from being granted an SPC.

The 45 page ruling can be read in its entirety here.

A Bulgarian milestone as Supreme Court rules on Atripla application

From our friend Dimitar Batakliev (IP Attorney, Bulgaria) comes the following news:

"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.

In a decision of 8 June 2014 the Court held that the claimed product, consisting of efavirenz, emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, was not protected by the basic patent BG 62612 and therefore did not meet the requirements of Article 3 of the SPC Regulation. According to the court, this combination was outside the scope of claim 8 which protected 

“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.

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.

If you can cope with the original Bulgarian text of the judgment, Dimitar has kindly provided a link to it here.

EU Association Agreements with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova: impact on patent term

A recent Petosevic News & Resources post contains an item, "Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova Sign EU Association Agreements" which mentions, among other things, the amendments to domestic intellectual property law which those three countries will be expected to make in return for closer trading ties with the European Union. One such requirement is that

"the term for patent protection of medicinal and plant products (which are subjects of marketing authorizations), can be prolonged up to 5 years depending on the time spent on completing the marketing authorization process (equivalent to SPC)".

This is unlikely to be done before all current EU Member States have approved the Association Agreements, but it's at least a step in the right direction.