Journal of Intellectual Property Rights

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Analysis of SPC Regulation Associated with Pharmaceutical Products in Europe


Affiliations
1 Intellectual Property Management Group, Lupin Limited, Nande Village, Pune 412 115, Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Pharmacy Management, Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576 104, Karnataka, India
 

The purpose of the study is to understand SPC regulations associated with pharmaceutical products. The study focuses on the case laws associated with SPC regulation and decisions handed down by national IP courts across Europe. The study also provides some guidelines for patent claim drafting with improved chances of getting and identifying avenues for challenging SPCs, as well as possible solutions and loopholes in SPC regulation. The guidelines for predictions of generic drug entry into market are discussed. The data collected and analyzed for individual European Country provides useful insight into pattern of SPC filing, grant and SPC invalidity. It is observed that there is a need to amend SPC regulation to provide better clarity to both innovators and generic drug industry.

Keywords

Supplementary Protection Certificate, Patent Term Extension, Court of Justice for European Union, New Chemical Entity, European Free Trade Agreement, Ema, Generic Drug Industry.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Anon (2017), http://www.ipo.gov.uk/spctext.pdf (online) (accessed on 18 October 2017).

  • Joshi O, Roy A & Janodia M, Supplementary Protection Certificate Provisions for pharmaceutical and biotechnological products in Europe: An era after Medeva and Georgetown, Journal o f Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (6) (2014) 377-386.

  • Regulation (EC) No. 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009.

  • Council regulation (EEC) No 1768/92. 1992.

  • Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of November 6, 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, 2001.

  • Eli Lilly v Human Genome Sciences, C-493/12. 2013.

  • Georgetown University, University o f Rochester, Loyola University o f Chicago v Comptroller General o f Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, C-44/10. 2011

  • Actavis v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, EWHC 2927. 2013.

  • Joshi O, Roy A & Janodia M, Comparative quantitative analysis of Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPCs) in Europe, Journal o f Intellectual Property Rights, 22 (1) (2017) 16-22.

  • Joshi O, Roy A, Janodia M. Unitary Patent Protection, Unified Patent Court, Supplementary Protection Certificate and Brexit Europe, Journal o f Intellectual Property Rights, 22 (4) (2017) 188-199.

  • Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection, 2012.

  • Council Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012 of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements, 2012.

  • Kyle M, European Analysis of Supplementary Protection Certificates in Europe European Commission, MINES ParisTech; 2018.

  • Jongh T de, Effects o f Supplementary Protection Mechanisms fo r Pharmaceutical Products, Technopolis Group; 2018.

  • Case C:322/10,Medeva 2011, CJEU.

  • Case C:422/10, Georgetown University, University o f Rochester, Loyola University o f Chicago v Comptroller General o f Patents, Designs and Trade Marks2011, CJEU 776.

  • Case C:518/10, Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd 2011, CJEU.

  • Case C:630/10, University o f Queensland v Comptroller General o f Patents, Designs and Trademarks 2011, CJEU.

  • Case C:6/11. Daiichi Sankyo Company v Comptroller-General o f Patents2011, CJEU.

  • Case C:443/12. Actavis v Sanofi 2013, CJEU.

  • Langer I, Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (Text with EEA relevance). Official Journal o f the European Communities, 2009, L(78) 1-42.

  • Case C:210/13, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Niederlassung der Smithkline Beecham Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Comptroller-General o f Patents, Designs and Trade Marks2013, CJEU.

  • Case C:442/11, Novartis AG v Actavis UK Limited 2012, CJEU.

  • Case C:577/13, Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK L td v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, CJEU.


Abstract Views: 194

PDF Views: 129




  • Analysis of SPC Regulation Associated with Pharmaceutical Products in Europe

Abstract Views: 194  |  PDF Views: 129

Authors

Omkar Joshi
Intellectual Property Management Group, Lupin Limited, Nande Village, Pune 412 115, Maharashtra, India
Archna Roy
Intellectual Property Management Group, Lupin Limited, Nande Village, Pune 412 115, Maharashtra, India
Manthan Janodia
Department of Pharmacy Management, Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576 104, Karnataka, India

Abstract


The purpose of the study is to understand SPC regulations associated with pharmaceutical products. The study focuses on the case laws associated with SPC regulation and decisions handed down by national IP courts across Europe. The study also provides some guidelines for patent claim drafting with improved chances of getting and identifying avenues for challenging SPCs, as well as possible solutions and loopholes in SPC regulation. The guidelines for predictions of generic drug entry into market are discussed. The data collected and analyzed for individual European Country provides useful insight into pattern of SPC filing, grant and SPC invalidity. It is observed that there is a need to amend SPC regulation to provide better clarity to both innovators and generic drug industry.

Keywords


Supplementary Protection Certificate, Patent Term Extension, Court of Justice for European Union, New Chemical Entity, European Free Trade Agreement, Ema, Generic Drug Industry.

References