JURISDICTION REPORT: ROMANIA
MEMANTINE AFTERMATH: WILL THE NATIONAL COURTS BE INFLUENCED?
Dragosh Marginean Ratza & Ratza
Supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) for human and veterinary medicinal products, as well as for plant protection products, became available in Romania upon the accession to the EU, on January 1 2007, under the EU legislation.
Up to date, almost 150 SPC applications have been examined by the State Office for Inventions and Trademarks (OSIM) and the majority have been granted.
Te SPC applications for medicinal products placed on the Romanian market before the entry into force of the national law implementing the Council Directive 65/65/EEC were initially rejected by the patent examining division of OSIM.
Te originators appealed these decisions before the boards of appeal which maintained the solution, but with a separate divergent opinion.
Te OSIM decisions have been challenged in court. Te Bucharest Tribunal admitted all the appeals against these decisions. OSIM filed a second appeal with the court of second instance against some of these decisions, but they were all dismissed.
Te generic pharmaceutical companies intervened in two cases in the second appeal filed by OSIM (olanzapine and anastrozol). Although the interventions were held admissible by the court, they were in the end unsuccessful and they were dismissed together with the second appeal filed by OSIM.
Patent protection was thus extended for several active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) such as sildenafil, candesartan, olanzapine, donepezil, to name a few. All these APIs were already on the market in Romania on January 1 2000, albeit under legal provisions not yet harmonised with the Directive 65/65/EEC.
Interventions in the first appeal discussing the merits of the case would have had a higher chance of success, but the generic companies decided to intervene while the first appeals were already concluded.
OSIM and generic pharmaceutical companies requested the court to refer questions on the interpretation of several articles of the regulation to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Te requests have been rejected by the court.
Tese cases were decided upon in the two procedural stages by almost all the judges in the intellectual property specialised sections of the court. Terefore, a very consistent and unitary jurisprudence has been established in these cases, a jurisprudence that would normally mean that all similar cases would have a similar result. However, recent developments in the CJEU jurisprudence might influence the future decisions of Romanian courts in SPC cases and determine a change in the jurisprudence.
84
“RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CJEU JURISPRUDENCE MIGHT INFLUENCE THE FUTURE DECISIONS OF ROMANIAN COURTS IN SUPPLEMENTARY PROTECTION CERTIFICATE CASES.”
Te recent CJEU memantine and galantamine rulings held SPCs for old medicinal products invalid, clarifying the scope of Article 2 of the Council Regulation no. 1768/92 (now Council Regulation no. 469/2009).
Te CJEU ruled that Article 2 of Council Regulation no. 1768/92 must be interpreted as meaning that a product which was placed on the market in the European Community as a medicinal product for human use before obtaining a marketing authorisation in accordance with Council Directive 65/65 is not within the scope of the Council Regulation no. 1768/92 and may not, therefore, be the subject of an SPC.
Te same question arises with respect to the scope of Article 19a (l) of the Council Regulation no. 1768/92. May a medicinal product which was already placed on the market in Romania before obtaining a marketing authorisation in accordance with Council Directive 65/65 be the subject of an SPC?
In our opinion it may not. However this is a question which remains to be answered by the Romanian courts in the light of the new CJEU rulings.
With respect to the old products sold in Romania before January 1, 2000, discussed above, we have to mention that most of the appeals have been finally decided before the opinions of the Advocate General on the memantine and galantamine referrals have been made public.
In the light of these two new referrals decided by the CJEU, we consider that the national case law with respect to medicinal products sold in Romania before January 1, 2000, could be changed.
Tere is one pending revocation action against an SPC granted further to court proceedings (candesartan). However, in order to make a difference, generic pharmaceutical companies should take action and challenge more of the wrongly granted certificates to obtain the referral of questions on the interpretation of the Article 19a (l) of the Council Regulation to the CJEU.
Dragosh Marginean is a senior partner at Ratza & Ratza in Bucharest, Romania. He can be contacted at:
dm@ratza-ratza.com
World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2011
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100