A Ray of Light in Muddy Waters? -The CJEU rules on combination SPCs in C-121/17 Teva v Gilead
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › fagfællebedømt
Standard
A Ray of Light in Muddy Waters? -The CJEU rules on combination SPCs in C-121/17 Teva v Gilead. / Minssen, Timo; Bostyn, Sven.
I: European Pharmaceutical Law Review, Bind 2, Nr. 3, 2018, s. 169-173.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - A Ray of Light in Muddy Waters? -The CJEU rules on combination SPCs in C-121/17 Teva v Gilead
AU - Minssen, Timo
AU - Bostyn, Sven
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
N2 - On July 25th 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its decision in C-121/17 Teva v Gilead , and thereby delivered yet another judgement on the interpretation of crucial provisions in the Regulation No 469/2009 concerning supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) for medicinal products (the SPC regulation). This time the CJEU attempted to clarify the meaning of article 3(a) of the SPC regulation.Article 3 (a) requires that the “product” that is the subject of the SPC must be “protected by a basic patent in force”. Notwithstanding its central significance for SPC applicants, patent offices, attorneys and Courts, it has for many years not been clear what is exactly protected by a basic patent for SPC purposes, especially in applications where protection is sought for a combination of active ingredients of the medicinal product.To bring some clarity into these murky waters, a series of referrals for preliminary rulings have reached the CJEU in recent years under the Article 267 TEU procedure. This paper discusses C-121/17 Teva v Gilead, which presents the most recent decision by the CJEU in these matters..
AB - On July 25th 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its decision in C-121/17 Teva v Gilead , and thereby delivered yet another judgement on the interpretation of crucial provisions in the Regulation No 469/2009 concerning supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) for medicinal products (the SPC regulation). This time the CJEU attempted to clarify the meaning of article 3(a) of the SPC regulation.Article 3 (a) requires that the “product” that is the subject of the SPC must be “protected by a basic patent in force”. Notwithstanding its central significance for SPC applicants, patent offices, attorneys and Courts, it has for many years not been clear what is exactly protected by a basic patent for SPC purposes, especially in applications where protection is sought for a combination of active ingredients of the medicinal product.To bring some clarity into these murky waters, a series of referrals for preliminary rulings have reached the CJEU in recent years under the Article 267 TEU procedure. This paper discusses C-121/17 Teva v Gilead, which presents the most recent decision by the CJEU in these matters..
UR - https://eplr.lexxion.eu/article/EPLR/2018/3/9
M3 - Journal article
VL - 2
SP - 169
EP - 173
JO - European Pharmaceutical Law Review
JF - European Pharmaceutical Law Review
SN - 2511-7157
IS - 3
ER -
ID: 201670655