The High Court (Arnold J.) decided to refer further questions on the interpretation of Article 3 of the SPC Regulation to the CJEU,, particularly in relation to the Article 3(a) requirement that “the product is protected by a basic patent in force”, suggesting an interpretation which focuses on the “inventive concept” of the patent rather than the particular wording of the claims despite the ruling in Medeva. In addition, the Court sought clarification on whether it is possible to obtain more than one SPC per patent, given the differing interpretations of the Biogen decision in light of Medeva.
Click here for the full text of this case.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.K [...]
On 15 January 2013, the French Cour de cassation, in the litigation between the Novartis companies and the Actavis companies about valsartan, drew the consequences of the 9 February 2012 order rendered by the CJEU in the frame of a parallel litigation in the United Kingdom.
As already explained in a previous post, the company governed by the laws of Switzerland, Novartis AG, was granted European patent EP 0 443 983 relating to “acyl compounds”, including valsartan, and, after its expiry, a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) No. 97C0050 which was in turn the subject of a pediatric extension expiring on 13 November 2011.
The company governed by the laws of France, Novartis Pharm [...]
Faithfully implementing Article 9 §4 of Directive No. 2004/48/EC, Arti-cle L. 615–3 of the French Intellectual Property Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) authorizes French courts to grant an interim injunction order after an inter partes proceedings (before the Judge ruling in preliminary proceedings) but also after an ex parte proceedings. As required by the EC Directive, the ex parte proceedings is reserved for the appropriate cases, where it seems necessary, “when the circumstances require that such measure should not be taken in the presence of both parties, in particular when any delay would be likely to cause an irreparable damage to the claimant”.
But, in practice, wha [...]
The German Federal Patent Court (FPC) has recently published its first decision (3 Ni 28/11 of 2 May 2012 “Ranibizumab”, GRUR 2013, 58) dealing with the interpretation of related CJEU Judgments “Medeva” (C-322/10) of 24 November 2011 and “University of Queensland” (C-630/10) of 25 November 2011. In the view of the FPC, the infringement test, which had been utilized by the German Federal Court of Justice in examining the condition of Art. 3(a) of the Regulation, can thus no longer be relied upon. Further, the FPC ruled that the requirement that an SPC can only be granted for active ingredients which are specified or identified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent, applies likewise to products of single active ingredients and combinations of active ingredients.
When the legislation creating supplementary protection certificates (now consolidated in Regulation 469/2009/EC (the “SPC Regulation”)) was first introduced in 1993 no-one could have foreseen the deluge of CJEU references on the interpretation of this “uniform solution” that was to follow. As recently as autumn 2011, one might have expected (or at least hoped) that the Medeva and Georgetown references would resolve, once and for all, any issues surrounding the interpretation of Articles 3(a) and 3(b) of the SPC Regulation. However this has not proved to be the case – just as one door arguably shut, several more have opened. Further, other aspects of the SPC Regulation have also bee [...]
Almost one year ago the European Court of Justice (CJEU) “clarified” the law on supplementary protection certificates. On November 24, 2011 it rendered its verdict in the “Medeva” case (C-322-10). One should not forget that “Georgetown” (C -422/10) was rendered on the same day and only one day later, the Yeda (C-518/10), Queensland (C-630/10) and Daiichi Sankyo (C-6/11) decisions came down.
In short, „Medeva“ has ruled that Article 3 (a) of the European Unions SPC Regulation 469/2009 requiring the product to be “protected by a basic patent” must be interpreted not according to the respective national law (no infringement test) but according to a uniformly applicable stand [...]