Unconstitutionality Of The Linkage Regulation Pro-Patent Holder

O
OLIVARES

Contributor

Our mission is to provide innovative solutions and highly specialized legal advice for clients facing the most complicated legal and business challenges in Mexico. OLIVARES is continuously at the forefront of new practice areas concerning copyright, litigation, regulatory, anti-counterfeiting, plant varieties, domain names, digital rights, and internet-related matters, and the firm has been responsible for precedent-setting decisions in patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Our firm is committed to developing the strongest group of legal professionals to manage the level of complexity and interdisciplinary orientation that clients require. During the first decade of the 21st century, the team successfully led efforts to reshape IP laws and change regulatory authorizations procedures in Mexico, not only through thought leadership and lobbying efforts, but the firm has also won several landmark and precedent-setting cases at the Mexican Federal and Supreme Courts levels, including in constitutional matters.
Every six months the Mexican Patent Office (IMPI) publishes an updated version of the "Linkage Gazette", a list of valid patents covering pharmaceutical products which are alphabetically listed according to the generic name of the patented product.
Mexico Intellectual Property

Every six months the Mexican Patent Office (IMPI) publishes an updated version of the "Linkage Gazette", a list of valid patents covering pharmaceutical products which are alphabetically listed according to the generic name of the patented product. In order to avoid the infringement of valid patents, the Mexican Regulatory Agency (COFEPRIS) is bound to observe the "Linkage Gazette" prior approving the granting of a new marketing authorization.

Through the public information provided by the Regulatory Agency in Mexico (COFEPRIS) in their official website, a pharmaceutical company that developed an innovator medicine comprising a valid combination patent detected an application for a marketing authorization filed by a generic company.

Olivares advised the pharmaceutical company to file a Constitutional Action against COFEPRIS, contesting the imminent violation of a patent listed in the Linkage Gazette by the granting of a marketing authorization for a generic medicine, essentially claiming the following: i) violation of the patent titleholder's Industrial Property rights if the Linkage System was not observed by COFEPRIS and ii) the lack of opportunity for the titleholder to be heard during the prosecution of the marketing authorization application and to have knowledge about the contents of the generic's application.

At the first stage the District Court dismissed the case under the consideration that the pharmaceutical company did not suffer any damage and therefore lacked of legal standing to file said action, since the generic's marketing authorization application was only a prospect and no violation can occur until its approval.

We appealed the District Court's decision arguing that the main rationale of the Linkage Regulation is essentially preventive; therefore, the prior approval of a marketing authorization was not required to assure and claim the due application of the Linkage Regulation in benefit of the IP rights.

The Circuit Court overturned the District Court's decision and ruled that the pharmaceutical company had the proper legal standing to request to COFEPRIS to observe the valid patents listed in the "Linkage Gazette" as established by the Linkage Regulation.

Moreover, the Circuit Court declared as unconstitutional article 167bis of the Linkage Regulation, as it does not provide the right of the titleholder of a patent to be heard during the prosecution of the marketing authorization application. This is the first case in Mexico wherein a provision of the Linkage Regulation is declared unconstitutional on behalf of the patent holder.

Legally speaking, article 167bis of the Linkage Regulation cannot be further applied in damage of this pharmaceutical company that won the Constitutional Action even in different cases, this would mean that derived from this decision, as from now on, the pharmaceutical company may be entitled to be heard in other marketing authorization application proceeding filed by third parties. 

Originally published May 27th 2014

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More