In its effort to tackle the threat of ‘evergreening’, the CJEU has caused some uncertainty about supplementary protection certificates, as Jaap Mannaerts explains.
At the time the supplementary protection certificates (SPC) regulation was draft ed, the legislator was well aware of the risk of SPCs becoming an instrument in ‘evergreening’ tactics—the ways in which pharmaceutical patent owners use the law and related regulatory processes to extend their IP rights.
A variety of safeguards were built into the system to assure a fair balance between additional protection for the pharmaceutical companies on one hand, which was necessary to stimulate pharmaceutical research, and the public interest, which required a strict maximum duration of the supplementary protection, on the other.
While the regulation, in principle, appeared fit to accomplish a well-balanced system in the reasonably simple and transparent manner envisaged, rulings by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in the past few years have made things increasingly complicated.
You need a subscription to continue reading this content.
To access the full archive, digital magazines and special reports you will need to take out a paid subscription.
News stories up to a week old and feature articles on the day of publication are accessible with a BASIC FREE ACCOUNT.
If you have already subscribed please login.
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
For access to the complete website, archive, and to receive print publications, choose '12 MONTH SUBSCRIPTION'. For a free, two-week trial with full access, select ‘TWO WEEK FREE TRIAL’; and for basic access to the latest news on the website and weekly email news alerts choose the 'BASIC FREE ACCOUNT' registration.
Biotech, threats, SPC, Medeva, CJEU