ECJ SPC decison
The IPKat is grateful to the sharp eyes of Andrea Glorioso for spotting yesterday’s ECJ decison (reported in the FT) on supplementary protection certificates for pharmaceuticals. SPCs are granted to formerly certain patent-protected pharmaceutical inventions for up to five years once the patent has expired. The extra protection reflects the fact that the patentee has been deprived of the chance to exploit his invention during the patent term because of the time taken by the regulatory approval process.
In yesterday’s decision in a case concerning MIT, the ECJ held that SPCs are only available where two active ingredients are involved and where a drug consists of one active ingredient and one that controls the release of theraputic efficacy of that active ingredient (as was the case in this case) no SPC can be granted.
The IPKat can see how this works bearing in mind the wording of the Supplementary Protection Certificate Regulation (on which the ECJ appears to rely heavily) but can’t see why, as a matter of principle, drugs with one active ingredient are less deserving of extra protection than drugs with two active ingredients.
Also in the ECJ yesterday
AG Sharpston’s Opinion in the Laserdisken case, interpreting the InfoSoc Directive but, since it’s not available in English, the IPKat will have to keep you in suspenders.