For the half-year to 31 December 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Rebecca Gulbul, Lucas Michels and Marie-Andrée Weiss.

Regular round-ups of the previous week's blogposts are kindly compiled by Alberto Bellan.

Sunday, 12 December 2004

SKIN-CURE SPC APPLICATION GOES TO ECJ


Here's another patent case that has been picked up by the LexisNexis All England Direct subscription service: Yissum Research and Development Co of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem v Comptroller-General of Patents [2004] EWHC 2880 (Pat), a decision of Richard Arnold QC sitting in the Patents Court as a deputy judge last Friday.

Yissum, who owned a patent for cosmetic and dermatological compositions containing 1-alpha-hydroxycholecalciferol used in the topical treatment of certain skin disorders, applied for a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) for calcitriol, a product for which UK marketing authorisation had been granted. The Comptroller refused the application on the grounds that, if the product to be protected was defined as calcitriol, the application did not comply with Article 3 of Council Regulation 1768/92 which states:

"A certificate shall be granted if, in the member state in which the application … is submitted and at the date of that application …(b) a valid authorisation to place the product on the market as a medicinal product has been granted in accordance with Council Directive (EEC) 65/65 …; (d) the authorisation referred to in (b) was the first authorisation to place the product on the market as a medicinal product".
Yissum appealed, alleging that the product to be protected was either "calcitriol for the topical treatment of psoriasis" or that it was "a combination of calcitriol and an ointment base". In this context a dispute arose between the parties as to the interpretation of Article 1(b) of the same regulation which states:
"(a) ‘medicinal product’ means any substance or combination of substances presented for treating or preventing disease …; (b) ‘product’ means the active ingredient or combination of active ingredients of a medicinal product;…(d) ‘certificate’ means the supplementary protection certificate".
The parties each argued that their respective interpretations of the regulation were acte claire but that, if the court did not accept their interpretation, the question of interpretation should be referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

Richard Arnold QC ruled that, if an interpretation of the Regulation were to be considered acte claire, the court had to be sure as to both (i) what the right interpretation was and (ii) that the ECJ and the other courts in the EU would take the same view. The court had a discretion to exercise as to whether to make a reference even if it did not consider that the interpretation of the regulation was acte claire. However, in the light of the recent reference to the ECJ from the German Federal Supreme Court of similar questions relating to the regulation, a reference in the instant case would avoid the risk of an appeal once the results of the German reference were known. Accordingly, in the exercise of its discretion, the court would refer the questions relating to interpretation of the regulation to the ECJ.

The IPKat is disappointed that the All England note didn't explain more on the background to the reference. Meanwhile, he has dug this up from Thomson's Current Drug Gazette (1 October 2004):
"This week’s PDJ also noted that the Yissum R&D Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem had lodged an appeal against the rejection of their 2002 UK SPC application, based on the Marketing Authorisation of December 2001 covering certain Calcitriol formulations. The SPC had been rejected with the examiner citing earlier authorisations for calcitriol. Yissum proposed that the earlier authorisations were not relevant as they did not relate to the same therapeutic indication, but the hearing officer did not allow this proposal.

An alternative case proposed that the product was a combination of calcitriol and an ointment base and therefore different to the earlier authorisations covering calcitriol alone. The patent claim did encompass this definition of a product, but the hearing found that this broad definition of the product was not compatible with the narrower scope of the marketing authorisation and so the application was rejected. An SPC application had already been rejected in Switzerland in 1996 and
the European patent expired in April 2004".
More on calcitriol here
Calcitriol for cats and dogs here

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yo, This blog is pretty neat. You should check out mine sometime. It pretty much covers b2c email marketing related stuff.

Brian said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a internet marketing online advertising site/blog. It pretty much covers internet marketing online advertising related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)

rushprnews said...

Hi, great blog! Let's talk Marketing and PR. Please feel free to visit my blog too at
, RushPRnews Daily Gazette, Open-Call for Writers.
My website is** RushPRnews press release services, distribution and free web posting** . Cordially, Anne Laszlo-Howard

性爱 said...

I am totally nude come see me. Take a bit for all pics and movies to load.

Why do I do this I like to make men blow their jiz in their pants.

Visit me.激情

Rynne said...

Nice blog, good job! Check our 1creditrepair if you have credit problems and e-book shop to find best ebooks with cheap prices !
money

Brian said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a british list mailing site/blog. It pretty much covers british list mailing related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)

Anonymous said...

What If This Could All Happen Automatically,
with a simple push of a button.....

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':