A supplementary protection certificate SPC granted for an enantiomer (escitalopram) cannot be declared void because a prior SPC was granted for the racemate (citalopram) when both the racemate and the enantiomer are protected by individual patents and thus are different products. This must be so because otherwise the enantiomer patent would be invalid for lack of novelty. The patent’s expiration and the SPC’s entry into force do not constitute reason to lift a preliminary injunction (PI), if the infringing product also falls within the scope of the SPC.
Click here for the full text of this case. A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com.
________________________
To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Patent Blog, please subscribe here.
