Journal of Intellectual Property Rights

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

SPC Regulation, Analysis of SPC Case Laws and Roadmap for Pharmaceutical Industry


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

The purpose of the study is to understand Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) regulations associated with pharmaceutical products. In this study the case laws associated with SPC regulation and decisions handed down by national IP courts across Europe have been reviewed. On one hand, this study provided insights into innovator strategies in managing product lifecycles and on the other hand, it also helped in studying perspective of generic drug industry. A survey amongst IP experts about SPC regulation have also been carried out. It is observed that there is a need to amend the SPC regulation to provide better clarity to both innovators and generic drug industry.

Keywords

SPC, Court of Justice for European Union, First Marketing Authorization, European Economic Community, Pediatric Extension, European Free Trade Association, New Chemical Entity, Pediatric Implementation Plan, Patent Term Extension, European Commission, Unitary Patent System, Patent Term Adjustment, Unified Patent Court System, One Product-Multiple Extension, One Patent-Multiple Extension.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • UK Government. Supplementary Protection Certificates. London; 2018, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/supplementary: protection:certificates (accessed on 24 July 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) 378-386 (accessed on 20 December 2015).

  • Pottering H & Kohout J, Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, Official Journal o f the European Union, 2009, L(152) 1-10.

  • Maartins V, Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, Official Journal o f the European Communities, 1992, L(182) 1-15.

  • Hansch K & Lowry M, Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products, Official Journal o f the European Communities, 1996, L(198) 30-35.

  • Economic and Social Committee, Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, Official Journal o f the European Communities, 2001, OJ L(311) 67.

  • Economic and Social Committee, Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, Official Journal o f the European Communities, 2001, OJ L(311) 1.

  • Fontelles J & Pekkarinen M, Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on medicinal products for pediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, Official Journal o f the European Communities, 2006, L(378) 1-19.

  • Schulz M & Mavroyiannis A, 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, Official Journal o f the European Communities, 2012 L(361) 1-8.

  • Aletreris S, 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, Official Journal o f the European Communities, 2012 L(361) 89:92.

  • 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.

  • European Patent Office, The European Patent Convention, https://www.epo.org/law:practice/legal:texts/html/epc/2016/ e/ar121.html (accessed on 25 July 2018).

  • Case C: 431/04, Massachusetts Institute o f Technology 2006, CJEU.

  • Case C: 130/11, Neurim Pharmaceuticals Ltd v ComptrollerGeneral o f Patents, 2011, CJEU.

  • Trojborg J, Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, 1993, L(169) 1:43.

  • O’Malley D, Council Directive of 20 June 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices (90/385/EEC), Official Journal o f the European Communities, 1990 L(189) 17-36.

  • Case C: 493/12, Eli Lilly v Human Genome Sciences, 2013, CJEU 45/24.

  • Case C: 422/10, Georgetown University, University o f Rochester, Loyola University o f Chicago v Comptroller General o f Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, 2011, CJEU 776.

  • Case 2927 (Pat), Actavis v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma 2013, EWHC.

  • Case C: 392/97, Farmitalia, 2000, CJEU.

  • Case SPC/GB93/017, Takeda 1993, (unreported oral decision).

  • Case 4, Centocor Inc's SPC Application, 1996, RPC 118.

  • ase 2, Takeda Chemical Industries Ltd's Applications 2004, RPC 20.

  • Case 646 (Pat), Generics (UK) Ltd v Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co Ltd 2009, EWCA.

  • Case 1902 (Pat), Gilead Sciences, Inc. 2008, EWHC.

  • Case 1916 (Pat), Astellas Pharma Inc v Comptroller-General o f Patents 2009, EWHC.

  • Case 2897 (Pat), Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited v Comptroller General o f Patents 2010. EWHC.

  • Case C: 6/11, Daiichi Sankyo Company v ComptrollerGeneral o f Patents 2011, CJEU.

  • Case C: 322/10, Medeva 2011, CJEU.

  • Case C: 630/10, University o f Queensland, CSL Ltd. 2011, CJEU.

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

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

  • Case BL O/066/10, Imclone Systems Inc. Ltd & Aventis Holdings Inc 2010.

  • Case BL O552/14, Icahn School o f Medicine at Mount Sinai 2014.

  • Case 987, Sandoz Ltd & Anor v G.D. Searle & Anor 2017, EWHC.

  • Case 181, Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited and Medimmune Limited/Medical Research Council 2012, EWHC.

  • Case 2545, Actavis Group PTC EHF / Actavis UK Limited and Sanofi and Sanofi Pharma Bristol Myers Squibb SNC 2012, EWHC.

  • Joshi O, Roy A & Janodia M, Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) for combination products: “Protection of incremental inventions” in pharmaceutical field after Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU) ruling in Actavis case, NTUTJIPLM, 4 (2) (2015) 108-112.

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

  • Case 13, Teva UK & Ors v Gilead 2017, EWHC.

  • Case C: 631:13, Forsgren v Osterreichisches Patentamt 2015. CJEU.

  • Case 3, British Technology Group Ltd's SPC Application 1997, RPC 50.

  • Case BL O/117/16, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation, 2016.

  • Case 24, Chiron Corporation and Novo Nordisk A/S 2005, RPC 587.

  • Case C: 482/07, AHP Manufacturing BV v Bureau voor de Industriele Eigendom 2009, CJEU.

  • Case C: 484/12, Hague in Georgetown University and Octrooicentrum Nederland 2013, CJEU.

  • Case 539, Teva UK Limited & Ors v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation 2017, EWHC.

  • Case BL O/222/04, Yissum Research & Development Company o f the Hebrew University o f Jerusalem 2004.

  • Case BL O/384/09, Neurim Pharmaceuticals Ltd's SPC Application 2009.

  • Case 14, Abraxis Bioscience LLC v Comptroller General o f Patents 2017, EWHC.

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

  • Case BL O/098/15, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Company Limited's Application 2015.

  • Case BL O/035/09, Merck 2009.

  • Case 966, EI du Pont de Nemours & Co v UK Intellectual Property Office 2009, EWCA.

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

  • 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.

  • European Patent Office, The European Patent Convention. Available from: https://www.epo.org/law:practice/legal: texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar121.html (accessed on 25 July 2018).

  • Frohlinger M, The Unitary Patent: Opportunity or Challenge? Ljubljana (Presentation), 2016.

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

  • Joshi O, Roy A & Janodia M, PTE provisions relating to pharmaceutical products in Australia in comparison with European SPC and USA PTE, Journal o f Intellectual Property Rights, 20 (3) (2015) 147-154.

  • Malwina M, 25 years o f SPC protection for medicinal products in Europe: Insights and challenges, European Commission, 2017.

  • Thyra de J, Effects o f supplementary protection mechanisms for pharmaceutical products, Technopolis Group, 2018.

  • Raphael De C, Assessing the economic impacts o f changing exemption provisions during patent and SPC protection in Europe, Charles River Associates, 2016.

  • Margaret K, Economic Analysis o f Supplementary Protection Certificates in Europe, MINES ParisTech, 2017.

  • Timo M, Study on the economic impact o f supplementary protection certificates, pharmaceutical incentives and rewards in Europe, Copenhagen Economics, 2018.

  • Hilty R, Study on the legal aspects o f Supplementary Protection Certificate in the EU, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, 2018.


Abstract Views: 250

PDF Views: 143




  • SPC Regulation, Analysis of SPC Case Laws and Roadmap for Pharmaceutical Industry

Abstract Views: 250  |  PDF Views: 143

Authors

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

Abstract


The purpose of the study is to understand Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) regulations associated with pharmaceutical products. In this study the case laws associated with SPC regulation and decisions handed down by national IP courts across Europe have been reviewed. On one hand, this study provided insights into innovator strategies in managing product lifecycles and on the other hand, it also helped in studying perspective of generic drug industry. A survey amongst IP experts about SPC regulation have also been carried out. It is observed that there is a need to amend the SPC regulation to provide better clarity to both innovators and generic drug industry.

Keywords


SPC, Court of Justice for European Union, First Marketing Authorization, European Economic Community, Pediatric Extension, European Free Trade Association, New Chemical Entity, Pediatric Implementation Plan, Patent Term Extension, European Commission, Unitary Patent System, Patent Term Adjustment, Unified Patent Court System, One Product-Multiple Extension, One Patent-Multiple Extension.

References