This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CN0484
Case C-484/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ’s Gravenhage (Netherlands), lodged on 31 October 2012 — Georgetown University v Octrooicentrum Nederland, operating under the name NL Octrooicentrum
Case C-484/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ’s Gravenhage (Netherlands), lodged on 31 October 2012 — Georgetown University v Octrooicentrum Nederland, operating under the name NL Octrooicentrum
Case C-484/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ’s Gravenhage (Netherlands), lodged on 31 October 2012 — Georgetown University v Octrooicentrum Nederland, operating under the name NL Octrooicentrum
OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 23–23
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
26.1.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 26/23 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ’s Gravenhage (Netherlands), lodged on 31 October 2012 — Georgetown University v Octrooicentrum Nederland, operating under the name NL Octrooicentrum
(Case C-484/12)
2013/C 26/43
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Rechtbank ’s Gravenhage
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Georgetown University
Defendant: Octrooicentrum Nederland, operating under the name NL Octrooicentrum
Questions referred
|
1. |
Does 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, (1) more particularly Article 3(c) thereof, preclude, in a situation where there is a basic patent in force which protects several products, the holder of the basic patent from being granted a certificate for each of the protected products? |
|
2. |
If the first question must be answered in the affirmative, how should Article 3(c) of the Regulation be interpreted in the situation where there is one basic patent in force which protects several products, and where, at the date of the application for a certificate in respect of one of the products (A) protected by the basic patent, no certificates had in fact yet been granted in respect of other products (B, C) protected by the same basic patent, but where certificates were nevertheless granted in respect of those applications in respect of the products (B, C) before a decision was made with regard to the application for a certificate in respect of the first-mentioned product (A)? |
|
3. |
Is it significant for the answer to the previous question whether the application in respect of one of the products (A) protected by the basic patent was submitted on the same date as the applications in respect of other products (B, C) protected by the same basic patent? |
|
4. |
If the first question must be answered in the affirmative, may a certificate be granted for a product protected by a basic patent which is in force if a certificate had already been granted earlier for another product protected by the same basic patent, but where the applicant surrenders the latter certificate with a view to obtaining a new certificate on the basis of the same basic patent? |
|
5. |
If the issue of whether the surrender has retroactive effect is relevant for the purpose of answering the previous question, is the question of whether surrender has retroactive effect governed by Article 14(b) of the Regulation or by national law? If the question of whether surrender has retroactive effect is governed by Article 14(b) of the Regulation, should that provision be interpreted to mean that surrender does have retroactive effect? |