JURISDICTION REPORT: HUNGARY
GRANTING SPCs FOR SINGLE COMPOUNDS WITH DIFFERING USES
Imre Molnár Danubia Law Office LLC
Te European Union has two council regulations regarding supplementary protection certificates (SPCs): Council Regulation (EEC) No 469/2009, a codified version of the original Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of June 18, 1992, concerning the creation of an SPC for human and veterinary medicinal products; and Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of July 23, 1996, concerning the creation of an SPC for plant protection products.
Te two regulations do not comprise cross-references; they form two entirely separate protection systems. However, when considering the duration of an SPC, the notion of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the Community (now the EU) plays a key role in both regulations.
Te owner of a Hungarian patent filed an application for the grant of an SPC with regard to a compound which was granted Hungarian marketing authorisation as a plant protection product. Te patentee referred to a Dutch marketing authorisation as the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the Community. If the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office (HIPO) had accepted this Dutch marketing authorisation as the first authorisation, the duration of the SPC would have been five years—the longest duration possible under the regulations referred to above.
However, the HIPO did not accept this Dutch marketing authorisation as the first authorisation. Rather, the office took into account a British marketing authorisation which was granted in respect of the compound in question to commercialise it as a veterinary medical product, and therefore granted a much shorter term extension, of two-and-a-half years. Te standpoint of the HIPO was that in Article 13 of both regulations the relevant term is the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the Community, but there is no mention of whether the product is a medicinal or plant protection product.
Te patentee filed a request for reconsideration of this decision with the Metropolitan Court of Budapest. Its main argument against the position of the HIPO was a reference to Article 3, paragraph (b) of each regulation under which, as one of the conditions for obtaining an SPC, a valid authorisation to place the product on the market as a medicinal product or as a plant protection product is required. Te patentee emphasised that the European legislator’s intention was certainly to have an identical definition regarding the authorisation to place the product on the market in Articles 3 and 13 of both regulations.
Te court approved the request for reconsideration and granted a five- year term extension. Te court underlined that the purpose of a patent
52 World Intellectual Property Review March/April 2012
term extension is actually to compensate for the time frame between the filing date of the patent application covering the product in question (the start date of patent protection), and the date of the grant of a marketing authorisation for that product. A marketing authorisation granted for a veterinary medicinal product cannot play any role in the term extension granted in respect of a plant protection product.
Furthermore, the court established that the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) decision in the Pharmacia Italia SpA case, which the HIPO referred to in the prosecution, was irrelevant in this case because the issue there was whether the marketing authorisation granted for a human medicinal product and a veterinary medicinal product respectively, differ in the above situation. Te CJEU established that the marketing authorisations for these products do not differ from each other as they must be considered equal under the terms of the Council Regulation (EEC) No 469/2009 on medicinal products.
Imre Molnár is partner and Hungarian and European patent attorney at Danubia Patent & Law Office LLC. He can be contacted at:
imolnar@danubia.hu
www.worldipreview.com
“IF THE HUNGARIAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE HAD ACCEPTED THIS DUTCH MARKETING AUTHORISATION AS THE FIRST AUTHORISATION, THE DURATION OF THE SPC WOULD HAVE BEEN FIVE YEARS.”
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