ARTICLE
7 April 2014

Recent European Developments Regarding Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs)

DB
De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek N.V.

Contributor

De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek is a leading international law firm, trusted by clients for over 150 years due to its deep engagement with their businesses and a clear understanding of their ambitions. While rooted in Dutch society, the firm offers global coverage through its network of top-tier law firms, ensuring seamless, tailored legal solutions. De Brauw’s independence enables it to choose the best partners while remaining a trusted, strategic advisor to clients worldwide.

The firm emphasizes long-term investment in both its client relationships and its people. De Brauw’s legal training institutes, De Brauwerij and The Brewery, cultivate diverse talent, preparing the next generation of top-tier lawyers through rigorous training and personal development. Senior leadership traditionally rises from within, maintaining the firm’s high standards and collaborative culture.

The Court of Justice of the European Union again handed down some important decisions in an attempt to clarify the interpretation of Regulation 469/2009.
European Union Intellectual Property

On 12 December 2013, the Court of Justice of the European Union again handed down some important decisions in an attempt to clarify the interpretation of Regulation 469/2009 ('the SPC Regulation'). These three decisions are expected to impact supplementary protection certificate ('SPC') strategies.

In this comment Gertjan Kuipers, Tjibbe Douma and Margot Kokke  discuss the background of SPCs and the SPC Regulation and the uncertainty that led to the referrals which resulted in the 12 December 2013 decisions. They then discuss the main teachings of the decisions and the implications they may have. In addition to its decisions of 12 December 2013, the court presented some interesting considerations concerning, for example, the term of SPCs. The court also seems to introduce a new criterion for the granting of SPCs: if the granting of an SPC were to be contrary to the objective of the SPC Regulation, the SPC could be refused. These additional considerations are addressed in the discussion together with their practical implications.

To read the full article, click here.

Source: Bio-science Law Review, case comments: vol. 13 issue 5,  published by Lawtext Publishing Limited. 

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