Another article, another case note: SPCs loom large in latest BioSLR

The just-published issue 5 of volume 14 of Lawtext Publishing's Bio-science Law Review has two items that should be interest to the SPC enthusiast. It opens with an article, "Supplementary Protection Certificates for biologicals -- some guidance from Pharmaq v Intervet" by the Potter Clarkson LLP pair of John Miles and Michael Pears. According the abstract:

The Pharmaq v Intervet case [the EFTA Court ruling, here, discussed on this weblog here] considers, in the context of a salmon virus vaccine, the important issues of what types of marketing authorisations count for the purposes of determining whether a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) is available and what its duration is, and whether an SPC based on a particular authorised biological product can validly extend protection to an authorised variant of that product. Possible implications with respect to SPCs for human biological medicines are also discussed.

This is followed by a case analysis by Katie Hutchinson and Laura Reynolds (Bristows), "CJEU rules again on combination SPCs - Actavis v Boehringer". Explains the journal:

This comment considers the latest judgment from the CJEU on combination SPCs. It summarises earlier cases from the court in order to build up a picture of the position the CJEU is now taking.

Further details of the journal can be accessed here.

SPC Blog Seminar 2015: mark your diaries, give us your suggestions

The SPC Blog is pleased to confirm that its next seminar takes place on the afternoon of Tuesday 10 November. Once again we'd like to thank the London office of Olswang LLP for letting us have the use of its lovely facilities on the top floor of 90 High Holborn,

We have already secured the participation of Examiners from the United Kingdom, Ireland and the Netherlands -- and we're hoping to add another couple of countries to that list.  The programme is however still flexible at this stage so, if there are any pressing topics that you'd like to see covered, whether formally as a programme topic or as part of a discussion session, do please email Rob Stephen at Robert.Stephen@olswang.com and let him know.

Queensland, SPCs based on process claims and third party observations: the UK Fabrazyme SPC application

The attention of The SPC Blog has been caught by a recent decision of the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) in Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai's application (Case O/552/14), a decision of Hearing Officer L. Cullen which was given on 14 December last but which has hitherto escaped us. According to the IPO summary:

Application SPC/GB13/069 concerns the product Agalsidase-beta, a glycosylated human a-galactosidase A enzyme which is the active ingredient in the medicinal product Fabrazyme (RTM). This product is used to treat Fabry disease where a deficiency in this enzyme means that those with this disease cannot break down a specific glycolipid leading to renal, cardiovascular and cerebro-vascular problems.

The applicant considered that the application met the requirements of Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation because the wording of the process claim of EP(UK) 2210947 B1 filed in support of the application identifies the product which is the subject of their SPC application. The applicant argues that this is sufficient to satisfy Article 3(a) in light of the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in C-630/10 (University of Queensland, CSL Ltd v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks).

After considering the relevant case law, including C-630/10, the hearing officer found that in order to satisfy Article 3(a), the product of the SPC application has to be identified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent as the product deriving from the process in question. The key step is to establish what is the product that is identified in the claim and decide if this is the product for which the SPC is being sought. A further consideration of whether the product for which the SPC is sought is (or could be) produced directly by the process claimed in the basic patent is not relevant to the basis for granting an SPC under Article 3(a).

The hearing officer examined what was the product that was identified in the process claim of the basic patent and was satisfied that this was the same product approved by the marketing authorisation and for which the SPC was sought. As the product of the SPC application was indeed identified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent as the product deriving from the process in question, the hearing officer thus concluded that the application met the requirements of Article 3(a) of the Regulation. The case was remitted back to the examiner.

This decision is also of note in that it considers third party observations made under Section 21 of the Patents Act 1977 -- which can be made in respect of the grant of an SPC. The Hearing Officer confirmed that the examiner correctly took such observations (made in this case by Genzyme Corporation) into account when reaching his decision and reiterated that a third party making such observations does not thereby become a party to the proceedings.

Seattle Genetics: CJEU calls for an AG's Opinion

Our good friend Mike Snodin (Park Grove IP) has spotted that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has indicated that the Advocate-General’s opinion in Case C-471/14 Seattle Genetics will be issued on 10 September 2015.  To remind readers, this is a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) which was made in October of last year, so it's proceeding fairly swiftly through the CJEU. The questions referred are:

Is the date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the Community pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation 469/2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products determined according to Community law or does that provision refer to the date on which the authorisation takes effect under the law of the Member State in question?

If the Court’s answer is that the date referred to in Question 1 is determined by Community law, which date must be taken into account — the date of authorisation or the date of notification?

Mike hypothesises that the call for an Advocate General's opinion must mean that the CJEU does not believe that the answers to the questions posed are either obvious or clearly deducible from existing case-law.

For further information see The SPC Blog's posts here (announcing the reference) and here (flagging an article by Mike Snodin).

Rosuvastatin: is it a “pharmaceutically acceptable salt”?

On 15 July 2015 the District Court for The Hague handed down its decision in Resolution Chemicals v Shionogi and AstraZeneca. This case turned on the validity and scope of protection of Shionogi’s SPC -- in particular, was Resolution Chemicals’ proposed zinc salt of rosuvastatin a “pharmaceutically acceptable salt” as claimed in the basic patent and which would infringe the SPC? The District Court granted a declaration of non-infringement. 

Jan Pot and Mark van Gardingen (both of Brinkhof, which acted for Resolution Chemicals) know how interesting this decision is for our readers and therefore have kindly let us have both the authentic Dutch text of the judgment and an English translation. Their summary of the decision -- without any commentary -- appears below.

Thanks so much, Jan and Mark, for your efforts, which are much appreciated!

Shionogi holds supplementary protection certificate (SPC) 300125 for ‘Rosuvastatinum, if desired in the form of a non-toxic pharmaceutically acceptable salt, in particular the calcium salt’. AstraZeneca is the exclusive licensee for this SPC. The basic patent for the SPC was EP 0 521 471 (“EP 471”), which had expired in 2012. Claim 1 of EP 471 was for “the compound [rosuvastatin, described using its molecular formula] acid or a non-toxic pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof.” Resolution Chemicals requested the Court to partly nullify the SPC, namely insofar as it extended to more than the calcium and sodium salt of rosuvastatin, and to grant a declaration of non-infringement in relation to its rosuvastatin zinc salt. The case is somewhat unusual in that Resolution Chemicals attacked the validity and scope of protection of the basic patent after its expiration in order to limit (the scope of protection of) the SPC.

The first issue before the court was construction of the term “non-toxic pharmaceutically acceptable salt” as used in claim 1 of EP 471. Resolution Chemicals argued that this term was limited to salts with an alkali metal ion, an alkaline earth metal ion or an ammonium ion by virtue of a definition in paragraph [0007] of the patent, which stated that “the term "a non-toxic pharmaceutically acceptable salt" refers to a salt in which the cation is an alkali metal ion, an alkaline earth metal ion, or an ammonium ion”. As a consequence, rosuvastatin zinc was not within the scope of claim 1. Shionogi and AstraZeneca however contended that para. [0007] should not be considered limiting and that “a non-toxic pharmaceutically acceptable salt” should be understood to include the zinc salt. The Court concluded that the skilled person would read the claim term “non-toxic pharmaceutically acceptable salt” in claim 1 in conjunction with para. [0007], and that the skilled person would construe this paragraph as a limiting definition. The court observed that at other points the specification used non-limiting terms such as “and the like”, whereas para. [0007] used the more restrictive “refers to”. The Court also noted that it was common general knowledge at the priority date that the choice for a particular salt form for a medicinal product matters in terms of therapeutic availability, and that performing a salt screen was for that reason routinely applied. Consequently, the skilled person may presume that the choice for the salts disclosed in paragraph [0007] was a conscious choice by the patentee. The Court therefore ruled that the zinc salt was not within the scope of EP 471.

The second issue was that of added matter. While the patent as granted was limited to rosuvastatin, the original application disclosed and claimed a broad class of compounds using a Markush formula. Resolution contended that the application as filed only offered support for rosuvastatin calcium and rosuvastatin sodium: these were the only salt forms of rosuvastatin disclosed by the examples and it was not permissible to extend this disclosure to other salt forms or to the acid. AstraZeneca and Shionogi claimed that rosuvastatin was the essence of the invention and that it was permissible to claim other salts as well as the acid. After examining the application as filed, the Court came to the conclusion that there was support in the original application not only for sodium and calcium but also for the other salts mentioned in para. [0007]. However, the Court found that there was no direct and unambiguous disclosure in the application for rosuvastatin acid. The Court therefore concluded that the SPC would have to be limited to the salt forms of rosuvastatin in which the cation was an alkali metal ion, an alkaline earth metal ion or an ammonium ion, as there would have been grounds to nullify the basic patent insofar as it had a broader scope.

Having dealt with validity and scope of protection of the basic patent and the SPC, the Court swiftly dealt with infringement. As zinc is neither an alkali metal ion, nor an alkaline earth metal ion, nor an ammonium ion, there was no direct infringement. The Court rejected infringement through equivalence, as zinc would have been a foreseeable alternative at the priority date which are taken into account when construing the claims according to Article 69 EPC. Accordingly, there was no need to discuss whether the zinc salt is “technically” equivalent to the calcium or sodium salt of rosuvastatin (or any of the other salts defined in para. [0007]). Finally, the Court also rejected indirect infringement. Shionogi and AstraZeneca’s indirect infringement argument was based on the premise that the scope of protection extended to rosuvastatin acid, which had already been rejected by the Court on the basis of added matter. The Court did not deal with AstraZeneca’s further argument that the rosuvastatin anions in solution associate with sodium cations present in the gastric fluid, since this argument was raised too late.