A Ray of Light in Muddy Waters? -The CJEU rules on combination SPCs in C-121/17 Teva v Gilead

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Ray of Light in Muddy Waters? -The CJEU rules on combination SPCs in C-121/17 Teva v Gilead

AU - Minssen, Timo

AU - Bostyn, Sven

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - On July 25th 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its decision in C-121/17 Teva v Gilead , and thereby delivered yet another judgement on the interpretation of crucial provisions in the Regulation No 469/2009 concerning supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) for medicinal products (the SPC regulation). This time the CJEU attempted to clarify the meaning of article 3(a) of the SPC regulation.Article 3 (a) requires that the “product” that is the subject of the SPC must be “protected by a basic patent in force”. Notwithstanding its central significance for SPC applicants, patent offices, attorneys and Courts, it has for many years not been clear what is exactly protected by a basic patent for SPC purposes, especially in applications where protection is sought for a combination of active ingredients of the medicinal product.To bring some clarity into these murky waters, a series of referrals for preliminary rulings have reached the CJEU in recent years under the Article 267 TEU procedure. This paper discusses C-121/17 Teva v Gilead, which presents the most recent decision by the CJEU in these matters..

AB - On July 25th 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its decision in C-121/17 Teva v Gilead , and thereby delivered yet another judgement on the interpretation of crucial provisions in the Regulation No 469/2009 concerning supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) for medicinal products (the SPC regulation). This time the CJEU attempted to clarify the meaning of article 3(a) of the SPC regulation.Article 3 (a) requires that the “product” that is the subject of the SPC must be “protected by a basic patent in force”. Notwithstanding its central significance for SPC applicants, patent offices, attorneys and Courts, it has for many years not been clear what is exactly protected by a basic patent for SPC purposes, especially in applications where protection is sought for a combination of active ingredients of the medicinal product.To bring some clarity into these murky waters, a series of referrals for preliminary rulings have reached the CJEU in recent years under the Article 267 TEU procedure. This paper discusses C-121/17 Teva v Gilead, which presents the most recent decision by the CJEU in these matters..

UR - https://eplr.lexxion.eu/article/EPLR/2018/3/9

M3 - Journal article

SN - 2511-7157

VL - 2

SP - 169

EP - 173

JO - European Pharmaceutical Law Review

JF - European Pharmaceutical Law Review

IS - 3

ER -