Category: patents

Actavis Group PTC EHF and another v Sanofi (Sanofi Pharma Bristol-Myers Squibb SNC intervening) (Case C-443/12); [2013] WLR (D) 491

‘Where, on the basis of a patent protecting an innovative active ingredient and a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product containing that ingredient as the single active ingredient, the holder of that patent had already obtained a supplementary protection certificate (“SPC”) for that active ingredient entitling him to oppose the use of that active ingredient, either alone or in combination with other active ingredients, article 3(c) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 precluded that patent holder from obtaining—on the basis of that same patent but a subsequent marketing authorisation (“MA”) for a different medicinal product containing that active ingredient in conjunction with another active ingredient which was not protected as such by the patent— a second supplementary protection certificate relating to that combination of active ingredients.’

WLR Daily, 12th December 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Eli Lilly and Co Ltd v Human Genome Sciences Inc (Case C-493/12); [2013] WLR (D) 489

‘Pursuant to article 3(a) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 469/2009, in order for an active ingredient to be regarded as “protected by a basic patent in force” within the meaning of that provision, it was not necessary for the active ingredient to be identified in the claims of the patent by a structural formula. Where the active ingredient was covered by a functional formula in the claims of a patent issued by the European Patents Office (“the EPO”), article 3(a) of that Regulation did not, in principle, preclude the grant of a supplementary protection certificate for that active ingredient, on condition that it was possible to reach the conclusion that the claims related, implicitly but necessarily and specifically, to the active ingredient in question.’

WLR Daily, 12th December 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Georgetown University v Octrooicentrum Nederland (Case C-484/12); [2013] WLR (D) 487

‘Where, on the basis of a basic patent and a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product consisting of a combination of several active ingredients, the patent holder had already obtained a supplementary protection certificate for that combination of active ingredients, protected by that patent within the meaning of article 3(a) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 469/2009, article 3(c) of that regulation did not preclude the proprietor from also obtaining a supplementary protection certificate for one of those active ingredients which, individually, was also protected as such by that patent.’

WLR Daily, 12th December 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk