On 15 January 2013, the French Cour de cassation, in the litigation between the Novartis companies and the Actavis companies about valsartan, drew the consequences of the 9 February 2012 order rendered by the CJEU in the frame of a parallel litigation in the United Kingdom. As already explained in a previous post, the company governed by the laws…

Faithfully implementing Article 9 §4 of Directive No. 2004/48/EC, Arti-cle L. 615–3 of the French Intellectual Property Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) authorizes French courts to grant an interim injunction order after an inter partes proceedings (before the Judge ruling in preliminary proceedings) but also after an ex parte proceedings. As required by the EC Directive, the ex parte…

The German Federal Patent Court (FPC) has recently published its first decision (3 Ni 28/11 of 2 May 2012 “Ranibizumab”, GRUR 2013, 58) dealing with the interpretation of related CJEU Judgments “Medeva” (C-322/10) of 24 November 2011 and “University of Queensland” (C-630/10) of 25 November 2011. In the view of the FPC, the infringement test, which had been utilized by the German Federal Court of Justice in examining the condition of Art. 3(a) of the Regulation, can thus no longer be relied upon. Further, the FPC ruled that the requirement that an SPC can only be granted for active ingredients which are specified or identified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent, applies likewise to products of single active ingredients and combinations of active ingredients.

When the legislation creating supplementary protection certificates (now consolidated in Regulation 469/2009/EC (the “SPC Regulation”)) was first introduced in 1993 no-one could have foreseen the deluge of CJEU references on the interpretation of this “uniform solution” that was to follow. As recently as autumn 2011, one might have expected (or at least hoped) that the…

Almost one year ago the European Court of Justice (CJEU) “clarified” the law on supplementary protection certificates. On November 24, 2011 it rendered its verdict in the “Medeva” case (C-322-10). One should not forget that “Georgetown” (C -422/10) was rendered on the same day and only one day later, the Yeda (C-518/10), Queensland (C-630/10) and…

The Brussels Court of Appeal issued a preliminary injunction against Eurogenerics on the basis of Lundbeck’s Belgian SPC for escitalopram, despite the fact that the SPC had been invalidated in earlier proceedings, the court found that, given the suspensive effect of the appeal against the decision invalidating the SPC, a preliminary injunction could be granted…

Until recently, cases involving “Supplementary Protection Certificates” (so-called “SPCs”) were relatively rare in Spain. This is due to the fact that, as a consequence of the transitional provisions of article 21 of Regulation 1768/1992 (the “SPC Regulation), SPCs became available in Spain later than in other European Union member states. However, over the last few…

On 8 June 2012, the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris rendered an interesting decision concerning Losartan. It particularly deals with two questions: the conditions of the SPC’s paediatric extension (Regulation (EC) No. 1901/2006) and the preliminary injunction as organized by Article L. 615-3 (implementing Article 9 of Directive (EC) No. 2004/48) of the French Intellectual Property Code. The US company E.I….