European Union: SPCs: Three Important CJEU Decisions

Last Updated: 9 January 2014
Article by Alexander Robinson

On 12 December 2013 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down three decisions which will be of interest to anyone reliant on Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) to extend protection for pharmaceutical products after expiry of their patents.

Cases C-484/12 (Georgetown University v Octrooicentrum Nederland) and C-443/12 (Actavis v Sanofi) sought to clarify the issue of whether more than one SPC could be obtained based on a single patent, with particular reference to situations where protection was sought both for individual active agents and for "combination products" comprising more than one active.

The questions referred in Case C-493/12 (Eli Lilly v Human Genome Sciences) sought to clarify the criteria for determining whether a product "is protected by a basic patent in force" within the meaning of the SPC Regulation.

While Georgetown and Actavis leave a number of issues to be clarified, these two decisions confirmed that there is no general exclusion in EU law which prevents the grant of more than one SPC per patent.  The decisions handed down in these two cases do, however, appear to impose a restriction that any product in respect of which an SPC is sought must be protected "as such" by the basic patent.

Regrettably, however, the decision in Eli Lilly still leaves a degree of uncertainty with regard to the broader question of what constitutes a determination of whether a product is "protected" by a patent for the purposes of granting SPCs, and it seems that further referrals to the CJEU may be required to resolve this thorny issue.

The individual cases are reviewed in more detail below.  Some of the wider implications of these decisions beyond the particular facts of the individual cases remain to be determined.  Anyone wishing to file new SPC applications, or who wishes to explore the implications of these decisions on their existing SPCs, SPC applications or strategy, is advised to contact Dehns for more specific advice relevant to their own circumstances.

Georgetown University

In this case, Georgetown's patent claims were directed inter alia to a vaccine for the prevention of papillomavirus infection, comprising at least one recombinantly produced human papillomavirus (PV) L1 protein or a fragment thereof.  Georgetown subsequently filed eight SPC applications in total, some of which were directed to individual types of PV L1 protein and others to combinations of different types.  In doing so, Georgetown relied upon two Marketing Authorisations (MAs) directed to particular combinations of PV L1 proteins.  SPCs covering the combination products had been granted, but applications directed to the individual actives had been refused or were still pending.

The CJEU considered the question of whether the existence of an SPC covering a combination product, based on a MA in respect of the combination product, precluded the grant of SPCs directed to the individual actives in the combination product.  The Court concluded that no such rule applies, stating that:

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, where, on the basis of a basic patent and a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product consisting of a combination of several active ingredients, the patent holder has already obtained a supplementary protection certificate for that combination of active ingredients, protected by that patent within the meaning of Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, Article 3(c) of that regulation must be interpreted as not precluding the proprietor from also obtaining a supplementary protection certificate for one of those active ingredients which, individually, is also protected as such by that patent.

It is important to note here the requirement that each active in respect of which an SPC is sought should be protected "as such" by the patent.  As long as this requirement is met, however, a single MA covering a combination of the actives is sufficient.


Here, Sanofi's patent covered compounds including irbesartan, an antihypertensive active agent.  Claim 20 related to a pharmaceutical composition comprising irbesartan in combination with a diuretic.

Sanofi had been granted a first MA for a product ("the mono product") comprising irbesartan as a single active, and a second MA for a product ("the combination product") comprising irbesartan in combination with hydrochlorothiazide ("HCT"), which is a diuretic.  On the basis of the patent and the two MAs, Sanofi had been granted SPCs both for the mono product and the combination product.

In the English courts, Actavis had challenged the SPC directed to the combination product on the grounds that, first, the combination of irbesartan and HCT was not specified or identified in the wording of the claims of the patent; and second, that irbesartan (which Actavis considered to be "the product", HTC per se not being the subject of the patent) had already been the subject of the first SPC.

The High Court referred two questions to the CJEU:

'(1)      What are the criteria for deciding whether "the product is protected by a basic patent in force" in Article 3(a) of ... Regulation No 469/2009?

(2)      In a situation in which multiple products are protected by a basic patent in force, does Regulation [No 469/2009], and in particular Article 3(c), preclude the proprietor of the patent being issued a certificate for each of the products protected?'

In respect of the second question, the Court held that:

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, where, on the basis of a patent protecting an innovative active ingredient and a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product containing that ingredient as the single active ingredient, the holder of that patent has already obtained a supplementary protection certificate for that active ingredient entitling him to oppose the use of that active ingredient, either alone or in combination with other active ingredients, Article 3(c) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as precluding that patent holder from obtaining – on the basis of that same patent but a subsequent marketing authorisation for a different medicinal product containing that active ingredient in conjunction with another active ingredient which is not protected as such by the patent – a second supplementary protection certificate relating to that combination of active ingredients.

As Sanofi's second SPC was deemed invalid in light of the answer to the second question, the Court declined to answer the first question.  However, a similar question was addressed in the Eli Lilly case.

Eli Lilly

Human Genome Sciences ("HGS") held a European patent relating to a protein, Neutrokine alpha, and to antibodies binding specifically to that protein.  Claim 13 of the patent was directed to such antibodies, defined in terms of their binding function.

Eli Lilly wished to market a pharmaceutical composition comprising as its active ingredient a specific antibody which was not named in HGS's patent, but which would fall within the scope of claim 13 due to its Neutrokine alpha binding capability.

Eli Lilly sought a declaration that any SPC based on HGS's patent and an MA directed to the specific antibody would be invalid.  It argued that the claims of HGS's patent could not serve as the basis for an SPC directed to the specific antibody, as the breadth of the claims did not amount to the antibody being "specified".  HGS, on the other hand, contended that it would be entitled to the grant of an SPC based on the HGS patent and any future MA obtained by Eli Lilly for the specific antibody.

The English High Court referred three questions to the CJEU:

'(1)      What are the criteria for deciding whether "the product is protected by a basic patent in force" in Article 3(a) of Regulation [No 469/2009]?

(2)      Are the criteria different where the product is not a combination product, and if so, what are the criteria?

(3)      In the case of a claim to an antibody or a class of antibodies, is it sufficient that the antibody or antibodies are defined in terms of their binding characteristics to a target protein, or is it necessary to provide a structural definition for the antibody or antibodies, and if so, how much?'

Here, the CJEU suggested that functional definitions such as those in HGS's patent may be sufficient for a product to be deemed "specified", and that a specific structural definition may not be necessary.  The decision did not, however, come to a definitive conclusion on this issue, as the Court held that the claims would need to be interpreted in light of Article 69 EPC and the Protocol on Interpretation of Article 69 EPC.  As the EPC is not EU law, it is outside the jurisdiction of the CJEU to decide on claim interpretation.

The CJEU held that:

Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for an active ingredient to be regarded as 'protected by a basic patent in force' within the meaning of that provision, it is not necessary for the active ingredient to be identified in the claims of the patent by a structural formula. Where the active ingredient is covered by a functional formula in the claims of a patent issued by the European Patents Office, Article 3(a) of that regulation does not, in principle, preclude the grant of a supplementary protection certificate for that active ingredient, on condition that it is possible to reach the conclusion on the basis of those claims, interpreted inter alia in the light of the description of the invention, as required by Article 69 of the Convention on the Grant of European Patents and the Protocol on the interpretation of that provision, that the claims relate, implicitly but necessarily and specifically, to the active ingredient in question, which is a matter to be determined by the referring court.

In the case of Eli Lilly, therefore, it falls to the English courts to determine whether or not HGS's patent would be deemed to "specify" the specific antibody which Eli Lilly wishes to market.


In view of the differing interpretation and application of Article 69 EPC and the Protocol between different European countries, it is regrettable that the Eli Lilly decision seems to do little to harmonise the approach of different Member States with regard to what might count as adequate language for an active to be deemed identified or specified sufficiently to enable the grant of an SPC.  As we have seen from the Georgetown and Actavis decisions, such considerations are likely to be of crucial importance for the future issue of multiple SPCs based on a single patent.  It therefore seems that Eli Lilly is likely to give rise to still further referrals to the CJEU, not least on the point of how the words "implicitly but necessarily and specifically" are to be interpreted.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.