Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) is the owner of a European patent
for a medicinal product containing the compound sitagliptine. The
application for this patent was filed on 5 July 2002. MSD applied
for a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) on the basis of
the first marketing authorisation ("MA") for this
product, which was granted on 21 March 2007. According to article
13 of the Regulation (EC) 469/2009 (SPC-Regulation), the term of an
SPC is calculated as the period between the application for the
patent and the grant of the fist MA, minus five years. In the case
of MSD's sitagliptine product, the SPC extension term would be
negative. So why bother with a negative SPC?
The reason to nevertheless apply for an SPC is the Paediatrics
Regulation (Regulation (EC) 1901/2006), which provides for an
additional extension of the SPC term with six months, if extra
safety and efficacy research is performed with regard to the use of
the product by children.
The German Patent Office decided to reject the SPC application
because there is no explicit basis for such negative term in the
SPC Regulation or the Paediatrics Regulation. MSD appealed this
decision and the German Federal Patent Court referred the decision
to the European Court of Justice. MSD argues that its SPC for
sitagliptine should be granted because it is necessary to have a
SPC in order to get a six months extension on the basis of the
Paediatrics Regulation in a later stage. According to MSD a
positive term is not one of the conditions for the grant of a
The Advocate General is of the opinion that the SPC and the
Paediatrics Regulation are aimed at providing a compensation for
the time loss and investments made as a result of the obligatory
safety and efficacy research. The legislator created a balance
between the compensation and the interests of consumers in
affordable medicinal products in setting the maximum term of
exclusivity at 15 years and 6 months.
On the basis of these considerations the Advocate General
concludes that a negative term SPC may indeed be granted. This
extension should take effect at the end of this negative term and
not after patent expiry.
Click here for the full opinion of the
The final judgment of the ECJ, in which it usually follows the
opinion of the A-G, is expected by October/November of this
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 Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Assos v Asos is a good example of how two apparently very similar trade marks can be held to co-exist side by side despite appearing to inhabit similar territory, and how it can be dangerous to adopt too simplistic a view of infringement and passing off. It is not enough to simply say "the marks are similar and what they are being used for is similar –therefore there must always be infringement".
Think trade marks offer full protection? Think
again. David Evans, director of Collas Crill IP in Guernsey,
discusses why Guernsey's new image rights legislation helps
well-known clients' succession planning
In October the Court of Appeal ruled against Cadbury in relation to its registration as a trade mark of the distinctive colour purple which consumers associate with its chocolate products, ruling that its distinctive colour was not a "sign" capable of being represented graphically and was not therefore registrable as a trade mark.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”