IPPT20111124, CJEU, Medeva v Patent Office

Print this page 17-12-2011
IPPT20111124, CJEU, Medeva v Patent Office

PATENT LAW

 

No SPC relating to active ingredients which are not specified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent.
• The answer to the first five questions is, therefore, that Article 3(a) of Regulation No 469/2009 must be interpreted as precluding the competent industrial property office of a Member State from granting a SPC relating to active ingredients which are not specified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent relied on in support of the SPC application.

 

SPC possible for a combination of two active ingredients, where the medicinal product contains also other active ingredients
• the answer to Question 6 is that Article 3(b) of Regulation No 469/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that, provided the other requirements laid down in Article 3 are also met, that provision does not preclude the competent industrial property office of a Member State from granting a SPC for a combination of two active ingredients, correspond-ing to that specified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent relied on, where the medicinal product for which the MA is submitted in support of the SPC application contains not only that com-bination of the two active ingredients but also other active ingredients.

 

IPPT20111124, CJEU, Medeva v Patent Office