We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics. If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
On 28 July the ECJ handed down two rulings primarily concerning the interpretation of Article 2 of Regulation 176892 (the Supplementary Protection Certificate Regulation, now replaced by 4692009EC
The AG has opined on two references from the UK on the application of the SPC Regulations (Regulation 4692009) to combination products (Medeva BV v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Case C-32210) and Georgetown University, University of Rochester, Loyola University of Chicago v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Case C-42210
The AG has opined on two references from the UK (Synthon BV v Merz Pharma GmbH & Co KG (Case C-19509) and Generics (UK) Ltd v Synaptech Inc (Case C-42709)) in relation to the SPC Regulations (Regulation 176892, but now consolidated in Regulation 4692009
The ECJ judgment in AHP Manufacturing BV v Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom (Case C-48207), following a reference by the Dutch Courts, clarifies the scope of Article 3(c) of the SPC Regulations (previously, and at the time of referral to the ECJ, Regulation 176892 but now Regulation 4692009
