• 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
      • Eva Maria Amoah
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

New formulation of an active ingredient: no SPC

6. May 2019

An SPC cannot be granted for a medicinal product which is protected in the basic patent and already on the market – even if a new formulation of an “old” active substance of this medicinal product represents and the effect is thus improved, the ECJ ruled in the case Abraxis.

Formulation active substanceAlready in December 2018 the Advocate General agreed on a strict interpretation of this question – we reported (see: Advocate General: No SPC for new formulation of an active substance). The Advocate General took the view that the restrictive interpretation of the term ‘product’ within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products could not be circumvented by a broad interpretation of the term ‘initial authorisation to place the product on the market as a medicinal product’ within the meaning of Article 3(d) of that regulation.

The European Court of Justice has endorsed this view in its judgment (ECJ C:2019:238).

Restrictive ruling of the ECJ

In its ruling, the ECJ also explicitly addressed the political dimension for medicinal products. When introducing the ESZ regulation, the legislator did not want to favour the protection of any pharmaceutical research leading to the grant of a patent and the placing on the market of a new medicinal product, the ECJ ruled.  Accordingly, only those who introduce an active substance or a composition of active substances as a medicinal product for the first placing on the market should be protected. A new formulation of an existing active substance – consisting of an already known active substance and a transport substance which has no medicinal effect of its own – cannot be regarded as a new product. This also applies if such a new formulation develops the medicinal effect with greater efficacy.

Restrictive ruling of the ECJ

In its ruling, the ECJ also explicitly addressed the political dimension for medicinal products. When introducing the ESZ regulation, the legislator did not want to favour the protection of any pharmaceutical research leading to the grant of a patent and the placing on the market of a new medicinal product, the ECJ ruled.  Accordingly, only those who introduce an active substance or a composition of active substances as a medicinal product for the first placing on the market should be protected. A new formulation of an existing active substance – consisting of an already known active substance and a transport substance which has no medicinal effect of its own – cannot be regarded as a new product. This also applies if such a new formulation develops the medicinal effect with greater efficacy.

Nanocoating for cancer drug Abraxan

The focus of the dispute is the supplementary protection certificate (SPC ) for the cancer drug Abraxan. Abraxis Bioscience LLC (“Abraxis”) applied for a supplementary protection certificate (“SPC”) for a combination of substances containing the active substance paclitaxel in the form of nanoparticles bound to albumin. However, the desired SPC notification for Abraxan was rejected in August 2016 on the grounds that the active substance was simply ‘paclitaxel’ and that nab-paclitaxel was therefore a new formulation of paclitaxel. The condition of Article 3(d) of Regulation No 469/2009 is not fulfilled since this authorisation is not the first authorisation for paclitaxel, as confirmed by the ECJ ruling.

The European Court of Justice ruled:

“‘Article 3(d) of 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, read in conjunction with Article 1(b) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of Article 3(3)(b) of 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, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of Article 3(1)(b) of that regulation are not applicable. b of this Regulation, which is invoked in support of an application for a supplementary protection certificate for a new formulation of an existing active substance, cannot be regarded as the first marketing authorisation for the product concerned as a medicinal product if that active substance has already been the subject of such an authorisation. ”

Do you need assistance in the protection of pharmaceutical products or medicinal products?

Our lawyers will be happy to advise you. If you are interested, please contact us – we look forward to your call!


 

 

 

Sources:

ECJ C:2019:238

Picture:

 470906 / pixabay.com / CCO License

  • share  15 
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconHealthcare & Lifesciences Tag iconEuropean Court,  formulation,  ECJ,  Abraxis,  medicinal product,  nab-paclitaxel,  judgement,  nanocoating,  SPC,  new formulation,  pharmaceutical product,  protection,  Paclitaxel,  active substance,  Patent,  basis patent

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

6. December 2021
Bioabsorbable medical devices: Advertising permitted

Bioabsorbable medical devices: Advertising permitted

26. November 2021
ECJ: Marketing authorisation of medicinal products according to national rules

ECJ: Marketing authorisation of medicinal products according to national rules

15. October 2021
Amendments in patent act China relating Pharmacy

Amendments in patent act China relating Pharmacy

5. October 2021
Merck and Merck & Co: dispute over digital global perception

Merck and Merck & Co: dispute over digital global perception

6. July 2021
Digitalisation in medical technology: medical purpose?

Digitalisation in medical technology: medical purpose?

Contact us or request a call back

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

Footer

Contact

Torhaus Westhafen
Speicherstrasse 59
D – 60327 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
  • Google+
  • 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]