The CJEU rendered its judgement in Merck (C-125/10) in December
2011, stating that it is possible to obtain a negative term
Supplementary Protection Certificate.
The term of an SPC
The term of an SPC is laid down in Regulation 469/2009, article
13 (1), which states that the duration of an SPC is equal to the
period elapsed between the date on which the application for a
basic patent was lodged and the date of the first Marketing
Authorization (MA) in the Community, reduced by a period of five
Merck's application for an SPC was rejected by the German
authorities on the ground that only four years eight months and
sixteen days had elapsed between the date on which the patent
application was lodged and the date on which the first MA was
Enabling paediatric extension - without going all in
Merck submitted that even if the SPC cannot result in a positive
duration, it can nevertheless have a zero or negative duration,
emphasizing that an SPC is a requirement for obtaining a paediatric
extension. A paediatric extension is prolonging the patent
protection period by 6 months and can be obtained by conducting
paediatric studies and submitting the results thereof.
Accepting Merck's reasoning, the CJEU stated that a negative
term SPC can be granted. However, the CJEU further stated that the
patent holder will not be entitled to the full 6-month paediatric
extension running from the expiry day of the basic patent
The paediatric extension starts on a date to be determined by
deducting from the patent expiry date the difference between five
years and the duration of the period elapsed between the lodging of
the patent application and the grant of the first MA. In this case
a paediatric extension would thus start to run 3 months and 14 days
prior to the expiry date of the patent, thus prolonging the patent
protection period by only 2 months and 14 days.
Provided the negative duration is not more than 6 months, the
patent holder will benefit from a paediatric extension. The
possibility of having a negative-term SPC is thus clearly good news
for the pharmaceutical industry and may encourage companies to
undertake paediatric research and development to a greater
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.
The Chancery Division has recently handed down an order in ITV v TV Catchup Ltd which prohibits the defendant, TV Catchup Ltd, from streaming certain free-to-air tv channels via its online service at www.tvcatchup.com.
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”