Thanks to Nick Fischer at Marks & Clerk law for being first to alert the blog to the AG Opinion in Santen (C-673/18) which was handed down last week.
The official English translation isn’t available yet, but it looks like the AG favours a strict literal meaning of
Article 3(d) (i.e. going against Neurim).
Nick comments (and the blog agrees based on Google translate!) that there is also a
suggestion that, if the CJEU does want to follow Neurim, it should allow SPCs for new therapeutic indications or for uses of the same
active which have a pharmaceutical, immunological or metabolic action of their
own.
The Opinion is
available here.
