Readers are alerted to the European Commission's on-going consultation on SPCs and patent research exemptions.
Contributions are particularly sought from originators in the agrochemical and pharmaceutical sectors, EU-based generic and biosimilar industry participants and API suppliers, innovative sectors whose products require pre-regulatory authorisation but are not eligible for an SPC, national authorities, consumer organisations, and individual citizens. So can we expect the eventual outcome to be proposals to address the "terminological mess" caused by the CJEU on SPC law? (as to which, see Mark's recent post here). Perhaps not - the consultation ostensibly has a narrower focus, with potential outcomes covering the following 3 elements:
1. The creation of a European SPC title;
2. An update of the scope of EU patent research exemptions; and
3. The introduction of an SPC manufacturing waiver.
The questionnaire is broad however, and includes the following: "Do you agree that SPC legislation has encouraged investments for innovation in pharmaceuticals?" and "Should SPC legislation be extended to apply to additional types of pharmaceutical/health products not currently covered?" Further information can be found here.
IPKat readers can submit their responses to the consultation in English, French or German by clicking here.
The deadline for submissions is 4 January 2018.
SPC consultation - call for input
Reviewed by Eibhlin Vardy
on
Friday, November 03, 2017
Rating:
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html