The Court of Justice clarified the requirements for grant of an SPC under Articles 3(a) and 3(b) of the SPC Regulation. According to the Court, on the basis of Article 3(a) an SPC cannot be granted…
On 24 November 2011 the CJEU passed judgment in the cases C-322/10 (Medeva) and C-422/10 (Georgetown). In the Medeva judgment, the Court answers six questions put to it by the UK Court of Appeal and…
As already explained in a previous post, the company governed by the laws of Switzerland, Novartis AG, is the holder of patent EP 0 443 983 entitled “Acyl compounds”, whose subject-matter is a group…
The Supreme Administrative Court –overruled the Patent Office (PO) denying AstraZeneca’s application for a supplementary protection certificate (SPC), because the PO should have applied § 77(2) –…
On 11 November 2011 the IP Chamber of the Court of Rome granted the motion for preliminary injunction requested by Novartis AG and Novartis Farma S.p.A. against Mylan S.p.A. on the basis of Novartis’…
A supplementary protection certificate SPC granted for an enantiomer (escitalopram) cannot be declared void because a prior SPC was granted for the racemate (citalopram) when both the racemate and…
The Federal Institute of Intellectual Property can also issue a supplementary protection certificate to an applicant if a certificate for the same active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) or…
In October 2009, we reported the UK Court of Appeal’s referral to the European Court of Justice (as it was then known) regarding the meaning of the term ‘the first authorisation to place the product…
In this blog, we reported earlier about a new nullity action initiated in 2010 against the German supplementary protection certificate (SPC) for enantiomeric escitalopram and the judgment of the…
