IPPT20111125, CJEU, University of Queensland v Patent Office

Print this page 26-02-2012
IPPT20111125, CJEU, University of Queensland v Patent Office

PATENT LAW -  SPC

 

SPC must relate to active ingredients identified in the claims of the basic patent
• 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 identified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent relied on in support of the SPC application.

 

SPC possible for active ingredient specified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent, where the medicinal product also contains other active ingre-dients
• In view of the foregoing, the answer to Questions 7 and 8 is that Article 3(b) of Regulation No 469/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that, pro-vided 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 an active ingredient 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 active ingredient but also other active ingredients.

 

SPC can be granted in case of a process patent only for product derived from the process
• The answer to Question 6 is therefore that, in the case of a basic patent relating to a process by which a product is obtained, Article 3(a) of Regulation No 469/2009 precludes a SPC being granted for a prod-uct other than that identified in the wording of the claims of that patent as the product deriving from the process in question. Whether it is possible to obtain the product directly as a result of that process is irrelevant in that regard.

 

IPPT20111125, CJEU, University of Queensland v Patent Office