SPCs
Supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) are a unique form of intellectual property that came into existence in Europe in 1993. Tey provide an extended period of monopoly to patent holders who experience substantially reduced effective patent terms due to the need to obtain regulatory approval prior to selling their patented medicinal or plant protection products.
SPCs sit at the interface between the patent and regulatory systems. That is, entitlement to SPC protection depends upon obtaining both a patent and a marketing authorisation for a regulated product. However, in order to provide a balanced system, the legislators stated their intention that SPC protection should be available only for new regulated products, with
minor changes to those
products (such as the use of a different salt, ester or pharmaceutical form) being barred from giving rise to additional SPCs.
For many years, the SPC legislation has been interpreted strictly
with regard to
the availability of protection for a specific ‘product’ (active ingredient or combination of active ingredients). This has resulted in the term of combined patent and SPC protection being capped to a maximum of 15 years (or 15½ years in some cases) from the date of the first authorisation in the European Economic Area for a medicinal product comprising the active ingredient(s) in question.
Tis strict interpretation of the legislation has led to some harsh results, with important medical innovations involving previously authorised active
ingredients oſten being denied SPC
protection. Tis is despite the fact that, in many instances, those innovations have been delayed in reaching the market for many years because of the regulatory burden imposed upon them. Te companies sponsoring the clinical trials for these medical innovations have been particularly affected by the unfairness of this situation when they have not been the ones to have benefited from prior sales of medicinal products comprising the active ingredient(s) in question.
However, a non-binding opinion provided on May 3, 2012, by Advocate-General Verica Trstenjak in the case
of Neurim
Pharmaceuticals (case C-130/11) means that this situation could soon change, and that SPC protection could become much more widely available for medicinal products that contain previously authorised active ingredients.
Background
Case C-130/11 stems from a reference from the UK Court of Appeal, which had sympathy
www.worldipreview.com
“THE AUTHORS OF THE ORIGINAL SPC LEGISLATION WERE CAREFUL TO STIPULATE THAT NOT ALL NEW PATENTS AND NEW MARKETING AUTHORISATIONS WOULD LEAD TO THE REWARD OF AN SPC.”
with the arguments presented by Neurim in its appeal against the refusal of the UK Intellectual Property Office (and the High Court) to grant an SPC for the ‘product’ melatonin.
The arguments from Neurim essentially related to the regulatory burden it had experienced prior to marketing the product Circadin® (as a treatment for insomnia, a therapeutic indication for melatonin patented by Neurim).
Although there had been earlier authorisations for medicinal products containing melatonin, these had been for unrelated veterinary uses (that did not fall within the scope of Neurim’s patent). More importantly,
those
earlier authorisations did not lead to any significant reduction in the regulatory hurdles that Neurim needed to overcome in order to market Circadin®. As the European Medicines Agency (EMA) treated Circadin® as a new active substance, Neurim was obliged
the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) stood in the way. Specifically, prior case law meant that:
authorisation for an active
ingredient is
prejudicial to the grant of an SPC application based upon the first ever human marketing authorisation for the same active ingredient (Pharmacia Italia SpA, case C-31/03); and
ingredient cannot be taken into account for the definition of
the ‘product’ in an
SPC application (Yissum Research and Development Company, case C-202/05).
Nevertheless, the court felt strongly enough in Neurim’s favour to refer questions to the CJEU in order effectively to ask it to reconsider this established case law. The Court of Appeal was able to do this because Neurim could point to differences in the facts and/or law relating to its case that provide distinctions over the previously decided cases.
The first and broadest of the questions referred by the court essentially asked whether the grant of a SPC is precluded when:
A;
authorisation MA2 and patent X;
medicinal product containing A; and
medicinal product containing A would not infringe patent X.
The Advocate-General’s opinion
to provide a complete package of clinical data as specified in Article 8(3) of the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (Directive 2001/83/EC).
In the view of the Court of Appeal, Neurim deserved the reward of extended protection (as provided by an SPC) because it had invented a new clinical application for melatonin, but could not commercially exploit its invention until after it had obtained, submitted and waited for the EMA to review a complete package of clinical data.
Although it seemed to the court that Neurim should be awarded an SPC, prior case law of
To our surprise, the Advocate-General is of the opinion that the answer to the above question is ‘no’.
On the face of it, the legislation clearly stipulates that all SPCs for a particular active ingredient must be
ingredient. However, based upon the first
marketing authorisation (for either human or veterinary use) for a product comprising that active
the Advocate-
General believes that the phrase ‘first authorisation’ should now be interpreted to mean the first authorisation that is within the scope of protection conferred by the patent upon which the SPC application is based.
The CJEU will now consider that opinion when reaching its final judgment later this year.
Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review 2012 27
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