This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010CA0422
Case C-422/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division (Patents Court) (United Kingdom)) — Georgetown University, University of Rochester, Loyola University of Chicago v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Medicinal products for human use — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 3 — Conditions for obtaining a certificate — Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ — Criteria — Existence of further or different criteria for a medicinal product comprising more than one active ingredient or for a vaccine against multiple diseases ( ‘Multi-disease vaccine’ or ‘multivalent vaccine’ ))
Case C-422/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division (Patents Court) (United Kingdom)) — Georgetown University, University of Rochester, Loyola University of Chicago v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Medicinal products for human use — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 3 — Conditions for obtaining a certificate — Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ — Criteria — Existence of further or different criteria for a medicinal product comprising more than one active ingredient or for a vaccine against multiple diseases ( ‘Multi-disease vaccine’ or ‘multivalent vaccine’ ))
Case C-422/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division (Patents Court) (United Kingdom)) — Georgetown University, University of Rochester, Loyola University of Chicago v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Medicinal products for human use — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 3 — Conditions for obtaining a certificate — Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ — Criteria — Existence of further or different criteria for a medicinal product comprising more than one active ingredient or for a vaccine against multiple diseases ( ‘Multi-disease vaccine’ or ‘multivalent vaccine’ ))
OJ C 25, 28.1.2012, p. 15–15
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
28.1.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 25/15 |
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division (Patents Court) (United Kingdom)) — Georgetown University, University of Rochester, Loyola University of Chicago v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
(Case C-422/10) (1)
(Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3 - Conditions for obtaining a certificate - Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ - Criteria - Existence of further or different criteria for a medicinal product comprising more than one active ingredient or for a vaccine against multiple diseases (‘Multi-disease vaccine’ or ‘multivalent vaccine’))
(2012/C 25/24)
Language of the case: English
Referring court
High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division (Patents Court) (United Kingdom)
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Georgetown University, University of Rochester, Loyola University of Chicago
Defendant: Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Article 3(b) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Conditions for obtaining certificate — Whether it is possible to issue a supplementary protection certificate for an active ingredient or combination of active ingredients if that active ingredient or combination of active ingredients is protected by a basic patent in force within the meaning of Article 3(a) of the regulation
Operative part of the judgment
Article 3(b) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that, provided the other requirements laid down in Article 3 are also met, that provision does not preclude the competent industrial property office of a Member State from granting a supplementary protection certificate for an active ingredient specified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent relied on, where the medicinal product for which the marketing authorisation is submitted in support of the supplementary protection certificate application contains not only that active ingredient but also other active ingredients.