EPLAW PATENT BLOG

UK – Teva UK Limited & Ors v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation

Posted: May 1st, 2017

(1) Teva UK Limited, (2) Accord Healthcare Limited, (3) Generics (UK) Limited trading as Mylan v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation Arnold J held that Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation’s (“MSD”) SPC was invalid as it did not comply with either Article 3(a) or Article 3(c) of the SPC Regulation. The SPC in issue was […]

READ MORE

NO – Pharmaq v. Intervet

Posted: January 31st, 2017

Pharmaq AS v. Intervet International B.V., Borgarting Court of Appeal, Norway, 19 December 2016, Case Nos. 15-170539ASD-BORG/01 and 15-204605ASD-BORG/01 Intervet International B.v. (“Intervet”), a subsidiary of MSD, was the proprietor of Norwegian patent NO 317 547 which expired 15 October 2015. Claim 1 and 4 of the patent was formulated as follows: “1. A virus […]

READ MORE

UK – Teva v. Gilead

Posted: January 30th, 2017

Teva UK Limited and Others v Gilead Sciences Inc, High Court of England and Wales (Arnold J), London, UK, 13 January 2017, Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 13 (Pat) Arnold J has again referred a question to the CJEU concerning the interpretation of Article 3(a) of Regulation 469/2009 (the “SPC Regulation”) namely: what are the […]

READ MORE

EU – MSD v. Comptroller-General / SPC referral to CJEU

Posted: January 17th, 2017

Merck Sharp and Dohme v. The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, referral to CJEU, 10 November 2016, Case No. C-567/16, 10 Nov 2016 The questions referred are: (1) Is an End of Procedure Notice issued by the reference member state under Article 28(4) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2001l83/EC of 6 November […]

READ MORE

HU – Hungarian Court refers questions for preliminary ruling to CJEU about calculation of duration of SPCs

Posted: January 16th, 2017

SPCs are important assets for pharmaceutical patent holders as they compensate the loss of duration of exclusive exploitation right of their invention due to the time lapsed between the filing of a patent application and obtaining a marketing authorization. Namely, it is only the marketing approval that enables the launch of the patented product and […]

READ MORE

CJEU – Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Accord Healthcare (SPC)

Posted: October 6th, 2016

Request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Riigikohus (Supreme Court, Estonia), made by decision of 21 October 2015, received at the Court on 2 November 2015, in the proceedings F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v Accord Healthcare OÜ, 5 October 2016, Case C‑572/15 1. The Court of Justice of the European Union […]

READ MORE

NL – Resolution v. Shionogi

Posted: August 2nd, 2015

Resolution Chemicals Limited v. Astrazeneca B.V. and Shionogi Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha, District Court The Hague, 15 July 2015, Case No. HA ZA 14-738, now including a translation in English and an extended head note with thanks to Mark van Gardingen and Jan Pot, Brinkhof Shionogi holds supplementary protection certificate (SPC) 300125 for ‘Rosuvastatinum, if desired […]

READ MORE

AT – Oberster Gerichtshof / SPC

Posted: May 27th, 2015

Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 22 April 2015, Case No. 4 Ob 20/15t In C-631/13 (Forsgren), the ECJ already ruled: Article 3(b) of Regulation No 469/2009 must be interpreted as precluding the grant of a supplementary protection certificate for an active ingredient whose effect does not fall within the therapeutic indications covered by the wording of the […]

READ MORE

ES – Arne Forsgren v. SPTO / Protein D SPC

Posted: April 16th, 2015

Mr. Arne Forsgren v. Spanish Patents and Trademarks Office, High Court of Justice (Contentious-Administrative Chamber – 2nd Section) of Madrid, Spain, 9 July 2014, Docket No. 945/2012. The wave of resolutions from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) concerning SPCs and the related interpretation of the provisions from the Regulation (EC) No. 469/2009 (hereinafter, “the […]

READ MORE