• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Dr. Christoph Hölscher
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Granting of several SPCs on the basis of the same patent

25. February 2019

Protection by a supplementary protection certificate for the new formulation of an active substance is important for the development of new drugs. The granting of several SPCs on the basis of the same patent has been judged in the case law of recent years.

granting of several SPCsIn principle, several supplementary protection certificates (SPC) can be granted on the basis of the same patent for several different products – but only under strict conditions. If every successive marketing of an active substance could establish a right to the granting of a large number of supplementary protection certificates, this would not be compatible with the balance between the interests of pharmaceutical manufacturers and the political mandate to protect public health. It is therefore in case law decisive for granting of several SPCs on the basis of the same patent whether the active substances or the composition of active substances which are to be protected in a new product by an SPC are the subject of the invention protected by a basic patent (within the meaning of Articles 1(c) and 3(a) of Regulation No 469/2009).

Case Law: granting of several SPCs

In 2011, the ECJ ruled in Medeva BV vs. Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (C:2011:773) that a supplementary protection certificate must be granted for a composition consisting of two active substances, even if the medicinal product contains not only this composition consisting of two active substances, but also other active substances (as well as the judgment in C:2011:776, Georgetown University vs. Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, dated November 2011). A prerequisite, however, is that these two active ingredients correspond to those mentioned in the claims of the asserted basic patent.

In the highly regarded Georgetown University vs. Octrooicentrum Nederland (C:2013:828) judgment of December 2013, the ECJ ruled that it is possible to grant several SPCs on the same patent in this case, in which the first SPC was granted on a combination of active substances and the subsequent SPCs on a single active substance. The basic patent for an L1 protein of the human papillomavirus of Georgetown University protected the various HPV compositions contained in the drugs Gardasil and Cervarix. A further SPC could be granted for each of these active ingredients, which is also individually protected as such by the basic patent.

Therefore, the facts of the case and the judgment differ from the judgment in the proceeding  Actavis vs. Sanofi (C:2013:833), which was also rendered in 2013. In this case, a basic patent protected an active ingredient as such and an SPC was granted for a drug containing that active ingredient. The question was whether the patent holder could apply for a second SPC for the composition of the active substance for which an SPC had already been granted and the active substance which as such was not protected by that patent on the basis of that patent but a subsequent authorisation to place on the market a medicinal product with a different active substance composition. And this was rejected by the ECJ.

Similarly, in the case Actavis v Boehringer 2015 (C:2015:165), the ECJ refused to grant several SPCs on the same patent. In this case, too, a basic patent comprised a claim to a product with an active substance forming the sole object of the invention for which the patent holder had already been granted an SPC. Therefore, no second SPC could be granted on the basis of the same patent for a combination of that active substance with another substance. The active substance combination AB compared with the single active substance A, for which the an SPC had already been granted is considered to be the same innovation.

The ECJ also followed this line in its judgment of 25 July 2018 in the Teva vs. Gilead case concerning the AIDS drug TRUVADA® (C:2018:585, see “ECJ judgment in the ESZ dispute over Gileads AIDS blockbuster” ). A product consisting of several active ingredients with combined action is protected “by a valid basic patent”, even if the combination of active ingredients of which this product consists is not expressly mentioned in the claims of the basic patent, but these claims necessarily and specifically refer to this combination. The ECJ ruled that each of the active ingredients must be specifically identifiable in the light of all information disclosed by the patent.

SPC jurisprudence – on carriers and coatings

Remarkable in this respect is the judgment of the German Federal Patent Court of January 2018 (14 W (pat) 10/16) in which the SPC grant for a hexavalent vaccine against a formulation patent was granted (see: ESZ grant for hexavalent vaccine – on a formulation patent) In this case, each of the individual active substances was named individually in the claims of the basic patent. The BPatG based its positive decision on the fact that excipients and carriers from the claims of the basic patent were not relevant. In the present case, the adjuvant as carrier substance had been decisive for the inventive step and thus for the grant of the basic patent; a synergistic effect of the active substance combination was never claimed.

The granting of an SPC on a formulation patent is also the subject of the dispute in the current Abraxis case (C:2018:1020), in which the Advocate General demanded a strict interpretation ( ECJ Advocate General: No SPC for new formulation of an active substance ). The special feature of this case is that the SPC was applied for for a combination of substances containing the active substance in the form of coating by nanotechnology. The ruling of the ECJ in this case can be awaited this spring.

Any questions in patent protection for pharmaceutical or chemical products or processes?

Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law. Please take your chance and contact us.

 

Sources:

ECJ Georgetown II C:2013:828 , 12 December 2013

Picture:

phoenixwil /pixabay.com / CCO License  

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconHealthcare & Lifesciences,  Patent Law Tag iconTEVA,  Actavis,  SPC,  Sanofi,  Georgetown University,  case law,  BPatG,  Gilead,  ECJ,  Boehringer Ingelheim

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Healthcare & Lifesciences

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022
  • EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible 24. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

7. March 2022
BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt

BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

22. February 2022
PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

8. February 2022
Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

3. February 2022
PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

1. February 2022
Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]